Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About fatedtodie

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

905 profile views
  1. The combat pools are not the reason they are going against open combat, they just get too creative with what to do and decide to do random fun rather than fight. 9 sessions in still combat shy. =) We will see what happens during tonight's session. I have 3 combat scenarios that COULD happen, but I won't force any of them unless the story requires it.
  2. (As the GM of the game my Player posted a request for Players for) It managed to go well, but nobody from this forum or reddit ended up joining. I ended up having someone contact a post I put on Roll20 and calling in a friend to make it work. The session write-up is here...https://rhinospeaks.wordpress.com/2015/06/17/session-9-group-3/
  3. 1, Incorrect. You were rude, I stated quotes from the text, and then purposely took a devil's advocate view which the thread when violently against and you most violently. 2, typing you are not mad and your actions/words don't match up. Say whatever you want, you are mad. 3, I appreciate you agreeing with me 4, I appreciate you agreeing with me again. The irony is you are part of that. And the "it is not a discussion for this thread" you gave up on that 2 or 3 posts ago so why bother going back on track now?
  4. Honestly I go by the "Rule of now" when I come across situations like this. If "at this moment" I am creating a character I go by whatever are the accepted rules NOW. If later they change it doesn't make sense to force a redesign, you are working in the equivalent of a parallel universe at that point. So move forward as if you never saw the new rule until the game reaches a point that new people come in. New people still utilizing the rule of now create using the NEW rules because that is what is accepted now. Hopefully that helps.
  5. There is no mention of anything on Wookiepedia so maybe someone heard/read/whatever'ed something wrong. Traditionally if an official (real world or Star Wars) wanted someone to go through an area without being molested by the people in control of an area they might send some sort of signed documentation to note they are allowed there by the Official. There is nothing I know that is specific to Star Wars for this that I know of though. If it existed in a story it was likely because the story needed someone to get through without issues and so they used a common method to move the story forward. The short of it is, "you can make it up to be whatever you want without breaking/touching/looking at canon".
  6. I have done similar increasing cost do to location. There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing that and it adds more flavor to the experience. You could also raise prices at tourist type locations, or luxury areas, or really whenever you want as the story requires. There is nobody that can reasonably say you did wrong with your interpretation.
  7. Jeger pretty much your whole rant is "your opinion is different therefore you are a child" My comment was reading exact words and typing them. You got mad, and apparently that makes it 100% appropriate to be rude. Nothing is better than "You are different therefore I should mock you" Sad part is 50% of the threads here go that way. Very toxic community.
  8. To be 100% fair, the only "canon" is what George wanted, and the Special Edition is literally what he wanted. So it doesn't matter if from a literary perspective it was stupid to make the update (it was stupid) it was changed and therefore is canon. There is zero that can be dug up, dredged, or found in a time capsule that can change that except if it comes from Disney. It is nice to see old scripts being found though.
  9. I am sure you have an issue with what I typed and interpreting it is making you mad for some reason. The method for determining the difficulty is first eligibility. If it fails those 2 checks the difficulty is literally "this cannot be done". You are listing the intent, which I 100% agree with. Beyond that your anger issues are your problem. =)
  10. I am pretty sure the script of Indiana Jones didn't call for him to shoot the guy with the swords, but it was in the take that made it to the theaters. I am not sure a "script" especially a 4th draft is any more definitive than "my mother's friend's sister's boyfriend says..." Script + whatever allowed Improv + Editing = final release On a side note, I think that same script draft was featured last week on Pawn Stars. That dude's version was signed by George back in the 70s.
  11. To be fair, you are the only person in this whole thread that has stated anyone's opinion is wrong.
  12. Right but from a difficulty perspective per RAW the GTA states for a sil 5 ship the difficulty is "cannot be accomplished". As I stated it is not RAI, and it is likely intended to use the rest of the action information and to ignore the silhouette limit, but unless it states "ignore this part of the rule" per RAW you don't "ignore this part of the rule". RAI (Rules as Intended) is not always RAW (Rules as Written). To the "actions are obviously different" part, that is one interpretation, yes. It would not be a wrong interpretation to say they ARE the same and it does have the limit. It is the fuzzy area that is left to the GM.
  13. The issue I see in allowing it is the same that I see of people with Force Move using the "lift them up really high and then letting them fall to their death"... technically it is in the rules, but that is not Star Wars or that is not the Star Wars I want at my table. The moment they can "easy button" their way out of things the GM has lost control in my opinion. Thankfully a Wayfarer can't ever "gain the Advantage" anyway so technically being that RAW requires ramming to use the gain the advantage rules, a Sil 5 ship could never ram. Though that is going 100% RAW, it is likely that is not RAI though.
  14. The way I would handle it at my table is if it is lent and not returned within the same scene, the benefit is lost and must be reapplied when it is returned. The intent I see from the talent is the person that has the talent gets the benefit, not anyone that happens to know the person with the talent gets that benefit. Other GMs are allowed to read more than is written and add rules where they have none. I look at it from a Roll20 perspective. For the 2nd person to be able to "use" it, it has to be on their equipment list. And 1 item doesn't magically spawn a clone, so it would have to be removed from the 1st person's sheet. It is now "lost" from the first sheet and may be "found" later but it is "gone". My definition is not flawed, it is just different than yours. Calling my method of reading the exact words that are written and you ADDING WORDS is tragic on your part. As most of the threads go on this forum I will exit before it gets more hostile than insulting my ability to read words as they are printed. One last note: Just because my opinion and yours different does not make one or the other "better" keep that in mind before you throw out words like "flawed" towards others. This is a game meant to be fun and I was listing how I would do it at my table. You are not at my table nor would you be welcome there anyway, so there is no reason for my opinion on the matter to anger you so much that you resort to insults.
  • Create New...