Jump to content

fatedtodie

Members
  • Content Count

    545
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by fatedtodie

  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.
  15. If I sell you a cookie that I baked, it is no longer my cookie. It would be removed from my possession and owned by you. Just because I knew the magic to balance extra chocolate chips on it, does not mean this knowledge/power/awesomeness conveys to you just because it was once mine. Even if I put that extra chip on, due to your lack of knowledge/power/awesomeness it is very likely it will fall off before you can eat its yummy goodness. So in summary, it is lost from my possession and gone. I can Tinker with the next cookie with out any ill effects... I am that awesome. Hm. That cookie allegory made me hungry. But I think it is kind of flawed, because following the rules it would be more like you added some extra choclate to the cookie, that magically disappears and can not be tasted by anyone, if it is no longer your cookie. The question remains: can anyone taste it if you gave it to them while it was still warm? Well adding a mod slot is like "being able to see where I personally could add another chip on the cookie". The part I don't understand is why you and Pirate seem to think that the only way the item is lost is if it is destroyed. If you sell it, how would you ever know when he ate it? to be able to get your mojo back to find the extra chip slot? You guys are adding complicated where it is not required to be complicated. It is lost when it is no longer in your possession. Only you are able to balance that Cookie with that extra chip slot. If you want to add extra book keeping and allow for the game breaking levels of hard points that transferring the item to another person opens up, that is fully allowable, but as I stated in my original comment, at my table where I GM I would never allow that method.
  16. Last I checked there is nothing that Disney (The house of the mouse as you put it) put in the license that prevents EU/Legends mining. They still allow SWTOR mmo to be fully living in the EU with a valid license.
  17. If I sell you a cookie that I baked, it is no longer my cookie. It would be removed from my possession and owned by you. Just because I knew the magic to balance extra chocolate chips on it, does not mean this knowledge/power/awesomeness conveys to you just because it was once mine. Even if I put that extra chip on, due to your lack of knowledge/power/awesomeness it is very likely it will fall off before you can eat its yummy goodness. So in summary, it is lost from my possession and gone. I can Tinker with the next cookie with out any ill effects... I am that awesome.
  18. BTW to everyone that has participated in this thread so far, I appreciate your comments. I see that the game is going well and I have not done anything wrong allowing it (which I was slightly worried about).
  19. ??? that takes it a whole different kind of crazy. You say that if they sold it, they still own it? That is DRM style thinking that the software/music/movie/etc industry loves but nope. I fit more by "possession is 9 / 10ths of the law" kind of thinking. If you are holding it for more than a scene it is now in your character sheet and not the original owner. The original owner removes it from their sheet (aka it is lost) and they get to mod a new item. The original item loses the additional mod slot. The Outlaw tech sees where they can manipulate the weapon/armor/gear so it can fit something, but he also knows how to hold it with that method. Also nowhere is it RAW that HPs could stack. It is not handled in RAW and it is the potential issue if people add that it can be transferred to another person. Take this scenario; Tinkerer A applies Tinkerer to item A. Tinkerer A then gives the item to Tinkerer B. Tinkerer B applies Tinkerer to item A. Tinkerer B then gives item to Tinkerer C. Tinkerer C applies Tinkerer to item A. Tinkerer C then gives item back to Tinkerer A. Tinkerer B/C die. Tinkerer A has an item with 3 additional mod slots and technically B/C never "lost it" it can just never go back to them. This is how power-gamer/min-max/munchkin people think. You give them a little bit of an inch of rope they will have enough to hang you with it. That isn't creativity at that point it is deliberately gaming the system trying to push through a rule that isn't RAW.
  20. I did ambush them... 3 - 4 times already, at the same time I did not want to stifle their creativity so I let them bribe/talk/handle the situations their way. Eventually they will fight, but I think I made the decision I will let them choose when rather than demanding it. It is funny seeing them wiggle out of things.
  21. Check the description again. Tinkerer can only be applied to a single item once at a time. It's just as easy to interpret it to say that each Tinkerer can apply it once. That is the whole thing I am advocating against. You would have to change the text to "Each item can only be modified once regardless of how many Characters with the Tinkerer talent are around". Even with that it is a bad idea to allow it to be transferred. I would make the "loss" as "soon as it is removed from the character's sheet". So if it was given away to someone else... the mod slot is gone, but if it is left on the ship it is still there (unless it is stolen/borrowed/etc by another character at which point it is "lost").
  22. Check the description again. Tinkerer can only be applied to a single item once at a time. Funny, I did read it. Did you? Per the wording it says the Tinkerer can only apply it once per item. Soon as it is a different Tinkerer, he has never applied it to that item, thus they could apply it, adding 1 additional (or 2 over the original threshold). This is the bad idea/spiral that allowing the Tinkerer to transfer the item allows for.
  23. So where does it end then? Where does "loss" begin? I think about what the intent seems. If loss just means out of your line of sight, then it is lost if you leave it in a weapons lockup going into a bar/casino/etc. If loss means out of your possession then as soon as you hand it to your group mate it is gone. What seems more likely is due to your crazy abilities you can mess with things and fit another attachment with space-bondo/space-duct tape. You as the Outlaw Tech may be fine and know how to handle a weapon sight that is like that but the average person couldn't. Also what is to stop 2 Outlaw techs working together to double boost an item? It only says they can do it once, that means if you have 3 Outlaw Techs and use the "can transfer it to another Player" rule you can add 3 HPs to it. You can see how that can spiral out of control really fast. Suddenly it is "The Mask" style craziness and you gave up on being reasonable.
  24. I like it and dislike it for different reasons. Dislike: 1, The group members spent a decent amount of time going through the motions of getting weapons/armor it is a waste to have none of it used except a grenade (which is used more as emphasis than explosive which is awesome). 2, It can be fun to have a tangible consequence for being mean to people. Without a fight, the Players don't feel like it mattered soon as they left the situation. Like; 1, The way they weasel out of combat is impressive. 2, While I don't get to hurt them physically I get to give more subtle consequences. 3, It is more like real life. The unfortunate part is one of my Players reads this forum and now wants to initiate combat on purpose "just to shake things up". This could either be a return to a more normal game, or it could alienate him from the other Players.
×
×
  • Create New...