But on the DS at the end of RotJ, Luke fundamentally changed. He finally saw what his impulses drove him to and what would happen if he let his emotions get the better of him (he would turn to the dark side like Anakin), and he chose to change in that moment he threw his lightsaber away. He chose to stay to the light side. THAT is what made him the new hope, that is what made him the hope for the future and to do things differently than what came before. Plus, now knowing this about himself, he now had 10-20 years to reflect and understand that he can be reckless and come to master that aspect of himself. With this info it has always been my impression that Luke would be the one to usher in a new and fundamentally different Jedi. But what we got was a Luke who was simply continuing the traditions that came before. And in that sense I find Luke's transformation in RotJ invalidated. He was not the new hope, he was merely the next in line.

Were there ever stats for Guri (Xixor's bodyguard) in this edition? Guri would be the second-closest Star Wars EU has to Alita besides Grievous.

Upon second viewing I stand by my initial assessment: a really good unsatisfying Star Wars movie. Kylo Ren remains my favorite of the new characters. I'm awfully forgiving of the faults of Star Wars movies but the plot holes in this one really push the boundaries of my suspension of disbelief. Overall, I enjoyed it. I may or may not see it again in the theater, not going to go out of my way to do so though... I did notice on the second viewing that I think Luke is projecting the entire time Rey is on the island. When we first see Luke he is in his tan robes and he immediately goes off to his hut. He then is in his black robes for the entire time she is on the island and as soon as Rey leaves the very next scene we see Luke back in his tan robes. He also projects to the Resistance and Kylo a Luke in his black robes. Not entirely sure the significance there but noticeable...

My current thoughts after one viewing: a really good but unsatisfying Star Wars movie. I liked Kylo and Poe's development. I hated Poe in TFA and it was painful to watch him repeatedly thwarted by his allies in this. I thought Rey was underdeveloped but I like her story. Finn was once again a waste of screen time. Hux was a joke, literally. Luke's part was unsatisfying, but I get they have to make room for the new characters to take over the rest of the series. I was genuinely surprised by a lot of things which made it enjoyable. Phasma is definitely the Boba Fett of this trilogy. Leia was great. I thought Snoke was handled well and was what I expected from an evil powerful dark sider. He reminded me more of a character from the Dark Horse comics than a character from the film's, which I enjoyed. Despite the waste of screen time, I thought Del Toro was the best addition, but I thought it should have been Lando instead. I thought the Yoda and Luke scene was great but should have come earlier in the movie. Overall I enjoyed the movie. I thought it was pretty obvious the directors intent to really push the envelope of Star Wars, it echos some of his other films. But I do not think it was as successful as it could have been. If you are going to subvert what Star Wars is, then really go for it and change it up. This movie seemed like it was trying to both subvert and stay true to Star Wars at the same time, which clearly didnt work. Also as a Star Wars fan i can forgive a lot of plot holes but this movie had them in spades and really broke my suspension of disbelief in several places. Second viewing today! Current ranking: RotJ RotS ESB Rogue TLJ AotC ANH/TPM/TFA

This! I was not looking forward to having to entertain gray Jedi BS in canon. Even Ren's ideas of tearing it all down; the Sith, the Jedi, the Republic and the FO, and do something new was a great concept and really called back to Anakin's feelings in EP III. That was a nice touch.

Just popping in real quick to say, LOVED the movie. I also overheard patrons in the theater commenting that the actress they got for Leia was spot on and specifically mentioning her looks. So at lease *some* people have/had no idea Leia and Tarkin were cgi.

Let me know if this works or not: Dawn of Defiance: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6ypgizvbw23wiet/AAAoHWkK50XI9icF0THuQud6a?dl=0 Living Force 1 - 7 https://www.dropbox.com/sh/eyz4rdrburrdsqm/AAAhVWe9ettPyEaYJEpTz42ra?dl=0

^This. I develop their personality, motivations and goals first. Then come the stats. Usually just pick and choose what I think they should have with an eye on their total xp level (thanks Oggdude's Character generator!). I also tend to save Nemesis characters for VIPs. Rarely do my PCs face a Nemesis for I believe a Nemesis to be a character that is just as integral to the story as the PCs. So most of the time my PCs will face strong Rivals with ranks in Adversary while I save the Nemeses's for those special encounters.

If you get something going in Boston let me know, Im in the area.

Sorry to necro this thread but I have a similar question I could not find an answer for by searching or in the FAQ. If the pilot of a starship downgrades his action to a maneuver to perform a second starship maneuver, does the starship still take 2 system strain? In other words, does a starship ALWAYS take 2 system strain when performing 2 starship maneuvers?

Wow. I'm on board!

Just jumping in here while tensions are high to offer my pov as GM... 1 - As GM I try to avoid the players telling me what skill they want to roll. I make the player tell me the ACTION they want their character to perform FIRST. Then I as the GM tell them the necessary skill. If they do not like it they have 2 seconds to explain why they should use the other skill. So If I were your GM I may have called for Coordination also because the owner of the datapad may have been going for it also. If they player was really fighting me on it I would say Agility and ranks in Athletics then. 2 - If you had explained to me as you did in post #13 then I would have allowed it as GM. But maybe had it take effect at the end of the session so you could still participate in that nights session instead of going off and rolling a new character distracting from the game. 3 - I would trust that my GM would give me those opportunities as they came. But sounds like your GM could be a bit more forth coming with reasons in general. As everyone else has said it simply sounds like a communication issue on both sides. So go communicate!

I think what people are trying to drive at is there doesn't need to be any officially defined explanation because the RAW clearly states the rule. I think any ambiguity is someone trying to read into things too deeply. Also, you are playing it correctly. The gunslinger in our group took out 5 minions in two shots (two-weapon fighting and tricked out blasters) last week with a single combat check. That is how the rule is intended to work.

For my Jane Bond type PC I went with Spy Infiltrator/Enforcer (Hired Gun). Lots of brute toughness plus spy stuff.

That's not necessarily true. The average freighter has a Class 2 hyperdrive, the same as all listed ISDs (other than the Victory-class). I always use a minion group for pilots though, so it is quite difficult to out run an ISD when facing off against an opponent rolling YYYGG. An average pilot (3 Agi, 1-2 ranks in pilot) is rolling YYG. Han is probably rolling YYYY at the time of ANH, so he knows it is difficult to outrun an ISD but because he has a ship built for speed and can roll well most of the time he, HAN, is going to outrun them. But, as the GM of that scene I would make the TIE fighters cause difficult terrain, forcing Han to roll his pilot checks against an Average or Hard DC. That is going to cut into his successes. While the ISD is just facing a Simple DC. Thus the ISD is able to get more successes and close the distance which is why Han is banking on their jump to hyperspace to get away because he knows he will get there long before the Empire does with his .5 hyperdrive.

Just wanted to say thank you for this wonderful tool! I've been using it for awhile now but just realized I never popped in to say thanks, so THANKS!

I ruled early on, mainly to save myself the extra legwork, that my players could spend the threat that I rolled for (at least) my minions. It was an excuse to shift some of the legwork from me to the players, and also let them be creative. But I might have to change that up. ^ I do the same most of the time for NPCs. Especially if I am stuck with how to spend them I ask the players for suggestions.

I think there is also a note in the CRB that says something to the effect that the GM can rule a grenade still hits everyone in an area even on a miss. The example given is a small room with several people in it. So the GM is well within their rights to trigger Blast despite advantages.

So it sounds like you're addressing your side of the issue pretty well - e.g. guiding them softly to some options without railroading them. I think offering them choices doesn't take away their agency as long as they get to choose. This kind of problem is common in sand boxes, so one technique I use is to give them a little bit to kibbitz about it but then I up the ante somehow - maybe a speeder crash nearby, or an argument at a nearby shop, something like that, something that can break them out of their reverie and move one of the plots along just a little. Seems like gaming the system is the biggest issue, and that's not unique to this system. I think allowing them to refactor once or twice is okay, but anything beyond that costs them time in game while they fiddlefart around trying to get the most boost dice. Firstly you could ask them to stop it, since handling a metagame problem in-game isn't ideal or fun usually. Secondly, you could take control of the dice and the dice pool, then push dice across to them once they determine an action. Once the dice are pushed, there's not really much more fiddling except for a random Boost/Setback. However, if your table is like mine, everyone has their own dice so it's hard to control this and it does feel a bit draconian. In the end, if you're all having fun then maybe it's not a problem. I know as GM it can be frustrating to put all this effort into prep every week, only to have the PCs not keep pace with your vision for the story, but that's okay - it's their story too. I view this as a boon since I can refactor what's coming up with more time to do it, but I too try to drive the story along because I think that leads to greater enjoyment for all. I know for a fact that having months to pick over potential story beats has made the story that much better. It's starting to wear on my enjoyment. However, I am stubborn so I'll never quit trying. I take much of the onus as far as the success of a game so it's difficult not to take it personally. I also am very VERY generous with the leeway on a lot of things. Mostly because I am STILL trying to break these players of their binary d20 habits. The last session however truly tested my patience and I was much more strict. I was also hoped up on pain meds and in lots of pain so I can blame it on that. If they've succeeded with the "kill them all" approach, then the opposition hasn't been overwhelming enough. For my group, the opposition is almost always overwhelming, running away has become part of the plan. How does that work? If there is a time limit, and they ignore it to fight, then they failed. If this kind of failure doesn't compromise their goals, then it wasn't really a failure. It sounds like they aren't taking these goals seriously. I have to be very explicit that they have no hope of winning to get these guys to even consider running away. They will continue to fight until they start dropping and at that point it is sometimes too late. I have 0 problems challenging the PCs, but getting them to run and conserve resources is not a strategy they consider, ever. Which is why all of their PCs are currently captured and we are running side PCs to come rescue them. It's not that they aren't taking objectives seriously, I think it is more that they adhere to the objective in lieu of any and everything else. They have been successful against overwhelming odds because they barrel through with sheer brute force instead of considering more efficient methods. This has had significant in-game problems for them. They have lost work, allies, and other resources because they are seen as reckless brutes. I have had friendly NPC allies tell them as much and the BBEG even tried to recruit them BECAUSE of their methods! Since their last efforts failed and has resulted in their main characters getting captured and an ally being killed, I am going to present them with a new choice (once they all have been rescued): THEY need to decide how they want to proceed. They will have no allies except one (a scoundrel with extensive contacts), their base has been taken over by pirates, and they have no ship. If they want to join the Rebellion and bring in their contacts to the Alliance like they keep saying they want to, they are going to have to work on establishing and maintaining those relationships. But ultimately the decision is theirs. Absolutely. I frequently use the One Check Combat Resolution rule. My intention with the last encounter was for them to try to get to the location they need to get to, access the computers, and retrieve the information they need all while facing waves of enemies. That plan back-fired because the only focused on the enemies. Next game session I will be utilizing some suggestions from this article from The Angry GM: How to Manage Combat Like a Dolphin I'll explain to them that the longer they linger in an area within this prison the more waves of droids they are going to have to face and more they are going to get worn down and potentially captured themselves. Hopefully, as I reiterate this throughout the session, will create some urgency among them. We'll see...

Not at all too late. I think the players might be abusing your generous nature by allowing them to keep fishing for The Best Answer. It's been my experience that combats infrequently last more than a handful of rounds in this system, but I'll admit I didn't always have heavy firefights. Is there a lot of kibbitzing while they decide how to write the story going forward, or are they trying to optimize the dice pool? On the one hand, you're all having fun so this isn't really a problem, but I do agree 5 hours is a bit excessive. One could argue that this hampers the story creation process. The current combat encounter has taken ~10 hours so far, 2 sessions. It's still not over. I'd say its a little bit of: 20% - having no idea what to do 30% - trying to come up with creative story 50% - trying to optimize the dice pool As GM I have taken on the responsibility of "having no idea what to do" for my players by freely offering up information and direction for them to go. I hate it because it makes me feel like I'm taking away their agency but they just do not seem to have any idea as to how to end an encounter other than "kill them all". We've been playing for 2+ years and I am STILL trying to wean them off of "kill them all". Unfortunately introducing other tasks in the combat encounter like: slice these controls, time limit to get something done, etc... only seems to drag out the encounter. They will only ever focus on the one task over all others. If they are slicing something and bad guys show up they stop slicing and start fighting. A little late to the convo, but yeah I still get this quite a bit in the game I run. Lots of spending time adjusting the die pool. Most of the time it is just one player, but frequently the other players do it too. We regularly have a single combat session that will last the entire 5 hours of play and/or over multiple game sessions. They are fun and interesting combats due to the nature of the dice but quick and cinematic they are not. I play in a D&D 5e game and we can blaze through 2 significant combat sessions in our 4 hours of play. It's left me as the GM racking my brain for ways to speed things up in the FFG system. What are you doing? Doing mass combat without the mass combat rules? Or not grouping minions up and require your PC to kill each minion individually instead of just shooting the group and killing a bunch of minions with each roll? Of course not. I am however introducing several types of baddies for them to fight in an encounter. Current encounter has them facing off against Rival Security droids with Riot Shields, standard minion security droids, and Rival K-9 security guard dogs. These PCs are at 1000 xp and 3 of them can wipe out almost a whole group of 5 minions in one hit. So conceivably it shouldn't really take that long.

A little late to the convo, but yeah I still get this quite a bit in the game I run. Lots of spending time adjusting the die pool. Most of the time it is just one player, but frequently the other players do it too. We regularly have a single combat session that will last the entire 5 hours of play and/or over multiple game sessions. They are fun and interesting combats due to the nature of the dice but quick and cinematic they are not. I play in a D&D 5e game and we can blaze through 2 significant combat sessions in our 4 hours of play. It's left me as the GM racking my brain for ways to speed things up in the FFG system.

Yeah, use those ^, they are nicer than the ones I made.

I'll see if I can re-link later today/tomorrow.

Wow, so many posts making excuses for the incompleteness of TFA. Interesting. This^ Personally I am not miffed by the lack of info on certain groups throughout the film as I am a Star Wars nerd and will devour extra material I need to make those connections. I just find it entertaining that criticisms of TFA ultimately resort to rebuttals of: A) it's a safe film for Disney, B) Lucas didn't do any better with the OT/PT, or C) just wait for Ep VIII. That's a really low standard... Also this^ To address the OP, yes I thought it was pretty clear that the First Order is a bunch of upstarts. Well funded upstarts but still just upstarts. With a large enough reputation that a small village on a backwater like Jakku knows that they should fight for their lives against them. What I find even more interesting is they seem only slightly more powerful than the Resistance. Not once are we shown the FO has any influence outside of their own military group, i.e. in bureaucratic roles either in their own territories or inside the Republic. I think TFA could definitely have used more exposition to bring the audience up to speed on the state of the galaxy and the struggles between power groups. But clearly JJ wanted to show very particular things that he focused solely on hitting specific beats at the expense of clarity. Something he is known to do, so...

I have a very different experience. Sure having a structured story is fine but I do allow for sandbox gaming as well. I keep all options upen but there is always a larger narrative infused within the games we play. Also I really don't understand how it could be because of to the system (this or any other) that a certain playstyle breaks down. Can you explain what you mean there? Well, I don't mean in general, just with regards to our group, I should have prefaced that. My players often flounder when left to their own devices. They will not even pursue Obligations or Motivation clues unless they get specific nudging from me. Often when their obligation has come up for the 3rd time and they have to deal with it or the magnitude increases. And as a GM I am always reading and rereading sources for how to perform my job better, so I am always looking for ways to engage them in the full experience. The core rulebooks are great, I love this system and I personally love a nice blend of sandbox and structure. This system seems to encourage sandbox style play and encourage players to go off the rails to some degree by offering mechanical options to ease them into it via obligation, duty, motivation, and morality. Yet if you have players that do not really engage those mechanics then you need to add a structured plot. I feel if you are just sticking with a structured plot you are effectively loosing out on other aspects of the game. I do what I can with the group I have and we typically always have a blast so it's never really been a problem. It's just been my observation that there is always this push and pull between sandbox and structure, more so than in other game systems.