Jump to content

Garran

Members
  • Content Count

    415
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Garran


  1. The Yoda line is part of a speech about understanding a situation before you act. In that context it's not a ban on ever going on the offensive.

    As to the specific situation the details really do matter. Is this guard a sentry in a warzone who'll sound the alarm at the first sign of trouble, resulting in the deaths of innocents? If so, and there isn't any other reasonable way to deal with the guy, then the PC's actions are reasonable under the circumstances. (You ARE supposed to take those into account.) If it's the night shift guard at the local convenience store and the character wants to rob the place then yes, it's conflict ahoy.


  2. Actually if you don't do evil things your morality stays the same. And frankly people who view morality as "if you don't do bad things then you're moral" are wrong. But I'm not going to digress into a philosophical debate on the nature of being a moral human being. You only roll for Morality if the character actually does things to gain Conflict. Therefore not doing evil keeps you at the same level as when you started playing. Your Morality can only go up by making morally conflicted choices in the game. The problem also seems to be that people equate gaining Conflict as being EVIL when in reality it's just engaging in less than ideal actions. Which is why when you do so, sometimes your Morality will go up and sometimes your Morality goes down. This represents the character being able to come to terms with his actions. It's random so a character will never know upfront if doing something bad and morally conflicting will result in good or bad things. But this allows an excellent chance to explore doing bad things for good reasons. It does a very good job of shifting through how that will or will not pay off in the long term.

    The Morality mechanic requires people to merely not do bad things. Otherwise you don't get to even roll for Morality. The Morality mechanic requires an exploration of doing morally conflicting things to see what kind of person that makes you. Frankly I think most peoples views on morals are wrong and that leads to why so many people have issues with the Morality mechanic and need some kind of mechanical reward for doing good deeds.

    This is definitely not RAW. "Player characters should have a chance to earn conflict (even if they don't take it) if their morality will have a chance to change." The key there is "a chance to earn conflict" - you don't have to do something bad to become good; you have to face a situation in which you COULD do something bad.


  3. The issue I anticipate running into is GM'ing a combined game where F&D Force Users are going to adventure with AoR and EotE characters, who may select the Universal Careers of Force Emergent and Force Exile. In this instance, would it be fair to have a Soresu Defender and Force Exile, both with a Force Rating of 1, in the same party but only the Soresu Defender player needs to mind his Morality? I'm concerned my players may, at worst, feel that isn't fair or, at best, meta-game to the point of having the Force Exile do the 'bad' stuff since the Exile doesn't need to worry about Morality. Thoughts?

    Morality isn't an absolute requirement for F&D careers just like Obligation isn't an absolute requirement for Edge careers and Duty isn't an absolute requirement for AoR careers. It's about the type of game you're running, so if it's essentially an Edge game, it's perfectly okay to use Obligation for everyone, especially if the player also feels that Morality and/or Duty would be an awkward fit.


  4. I wouldn't call for a roll if it's unstructured time, the PCs aren't under any particular pressure, and they're following known routes and the like. When they're under attack or otherwise have to make it happen NOW, when they've got damaged equipment (hyperdrive, navcomputer, etc), or are trying to travel off of known routes and/or through known hazards, THEN it's worth a roll.


  5. the Reckless guy was the guy with the repeating blaster so I just had him check to see if he'd gun down unknown shadowy creatures)

    That bit jumped out at me: what do you mean by 'you had him check to see if...'? If you're making the player roll for their character's actions in those situations, that's not how the system is meant to be used. The player makes the decisions when those situations come up.

  6. If that would be the case, lightsaber attack skill should also be tied to the lightsaber form trees.

    Not even remotely the same thing.

    And lightsaber skill essentially IS tied to the form trees - they get the Lightsaber skill on their specialization lists (the others don't) and have an assortment of talents related to using it (the others don't, save for the occasional indirect assist).

    With the exception of Niman Disciple, if you're pursuing one of those trees then you're focusing on learning how to fight with a Lightsaber, not on improving your skill with the Force.


  7. The strength of Sage for a Face character is the combination of two +1 Force Rating talents and the use of the Influence upgrade that lets you add your Force dice to all social rolls. Adding Charm to your career skill list doesn't hurt either, and the social talents in the tree are either along the way to getting the Force Rating talents (Kill With Kindness, Smooth Talker), or sit adjacent to it (Natural Negotiator).

    It's also worth bearing in mind that, while the knowledge-related talents may not boost your social skill checks directly, solid Lore and Education skills can go a long way toward getting access to the people you want to deal with.


  8. The mechanic doesn't need to make a check. I'd also say that a PC shouldn't need to make a check if they have access to appropriate facilities and enough time to do the job (which may not always be the case, of course). Negotiation would cut the price and/or provide some other benefit - but also runs the risk of complicating the situation if it goes badly. There's narrative potential there, which makes it worthwhile. "Roll roll roll until you get enough successes to remove the damage" isn't.


  9. And we all agreed that jedi did not lie for personal gain. So is this correct or we play it wrong?

    You all agreed that it wasn't for personal gain, so you're good here.

    Intent does matter with the conflict rules. If someone tells a lie and the motive isn't purely or primarily selfish, it won't trigger conflict. While it can be uncomfortable if you're used to more mechanistic systems, this requires judgement calls and if things aren't clear then an OOC explanation of the character's reasoning can be helpful (especially when you're all getting used to your characters).


  10. If you want two of each then it would be better to treat them as two separate minion groups. As pointed out above, it avoids stat confusion and it also allows them to act independently (which may matter if they're in different places or trying to do different things.)


  11. There's another problem with secret rolls that actually change outcomes: unlike early versions of D&D, this system is loaded with various PC abilities that can affect the outcome of those rolls. Aside from the sheer number of always-on talents that you now need to remember and take into account (is your memory always that good?), it means that the PCs can't use destiny points, per-session or other limited talents, assists, etc.

    Well, those things don't get to affect the roll? Well, you'd better be giving the players an XP discount on all of those things because they're being arbitrarily denied the full value of them.


  12. There's a disconnect between the "movie characters aren't beginners" rationale and the presentation in the game material of starting characters as competent in their field. Moreover, if you're going to use a particular setting for a game, going down the "NPCs are all cooler than you" path isn't a great way to foster enthusiasm.

    As with a couple of other posters, I feel that the requirement to flip destiny points to use dark side pips effectively hamstrings it as an option, even though it's supposed to be one that the PCs make at least some use of during play, and it doesn't help that it often puts Force-using characters in the position of needing to flip DPs to use their abilities at all, while everyone else only spends DPs to use their abilities a bit better than usual.

    Dropping the requirement to flip a DP to use dark side points also opens up the option of allowing a DP flip to roll an extra force die (effectively upgrading the check, just like everyone else does).

    Conflict is fine (it's the story thing that's actually supposed to matter in all this) and strain isn't much of a problem (it comes and goes quickly anyway), so they can both stay.


  13. I don't feel that they should be made stat-gods or essentially be designed as unbeatable. Vader doesn't keep minions around in dangerous situations just so they can be cinematically shot up by the good guys - he keeps them around because, even though he's capable, being outnumbered and/or in a situation where he hasn't set the terms of the meeting could and probably would end badly for him. You only see him doing his I-am-unbeatable routine when he's dealing one-on-one with someone less capable than he is or when he HAS set the terms of the meeting to his advantage (or both).

    For that matter, the various Imperial officers that he's always threatening could probably put a blaster shot into him in an unguarded moment if they really wanted to. They don't simply because they know there'd be very unpleasant consequences for plugging the Emperor's right hand man.


  14.   To some degree it'll depend on how much the character(s) are actually likely to use it.

     

      As an example, my Sage character - the only force-using character - in one RL group has a saber, but being a non-combative personality (actually, the least combative personality of the lot), he doesn't use it as a combat weapon (if pressed, he uses a blaster pistol); to him it's essentially a curio that has the occasional practical application. (Group can't get that blast door open any other way? He'll use his 'plasma cutter' to do it.)

     

      In the case of an all-Force group, starting everyone with sabers is an initial power-up, but it won't make a huge difference in the long run since it's expected that anyone who wants one will get one within a few sessions anyway. In the typical F&D era the group will also need to be somewhat careful about pulling the things out since that will draw a lot of unwanted attention.


  15. As a loose rule of thumb on skill checks, the PC will have a reasonable chance of success when they have more ability/proficiency dice than there are difficulty/challenge dice and setback/boost are equal. This falls off with bigger die pools where two+ more are needed. Having more than that makes success very likely, while having an evenly matched die pool means that the PC is going to fail about or at least half the time.

    When it comes to combat, lowball the difficulty. It's MUCH easier to add reinforcements for the opposition as the fight progresses or to simply let the PCs have an easy win than to deal with the "oops, that was too much" version, especially when you're getting used to a system.


  16. Okay, taking it a step further, what about people who abuse the game system within the ship. Most of the time I have people 'hanging out' in the gun turret just incase something bad happens...even when it is just a routine trip, to me that doesn't feel very Star Wars to me.

    You don't have someone constantly manning the guns waiting for the poodo to hit the fan, you wait for the alert and then go sprinting for the ladder to the gun turrets.

    This one sounds like a case of players who are worried about "you got ambushed, you're out of position, the bad guys get N rounds of free shots while you're scrambling into place" scenarios or who have actually endured them, perhaps routinely. If so, it can be solved by making it clear that this sort of thing won't ever happen - it's a house rule that if the ship is attacked, they ALWAYS get to battlestations in time to deal with it and the opposition never gets any edge on them as a result. And you then stick to that, no matter what the "rant rant realism" crowd might say.


  17. 2

    c. Coercing physically an ally after a joke - 2

    I'd actually want to hear the details of this one because you don't normally coerce allies.

    If it's something like 'grab him by the arm, drag him outside, and demand to know what he's playing at' (after he just needlessly insulted the important NPC), that probably isn't coercion in the morality sense.


  18. or argue that they should be able to hire an NPC to take care of the job for them.

    Not a problem. Group designs and runs the hirelings that their main characters paid to do the job. Makes for a side story and potential recurring NPCs (or replacement PCs).

    **

    As for the "keep them hungry" nonsense, there's a direct correlation between piddly payouts and PCs who strip every opponent/location/etc they deal with for resources. If you don't want the latter, don't do the former.


  19. If they're viewing obligation as a penalty then it's because they are, at least in part, right. Duty gives the players a boost (increased wound threshold) and morality can go either way (magnifies the conflict roll), but obligation slaps the party with a negative (reduced strain), and it's not like Edge characters get something else to offset that.

    Altering this aspect of obligation to something non-punitive might help. Dropping the strain penalty when obligation comes up and instead providing a boost when something pertaining to obligation is successfully resolved (the plot event is dealt with, obligation value is paid down, etc) is probably the simplest way to do it.

×
×
  • Create New...