Jump to content

Vondy

Members
  • Content Count

    969
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Vondy

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 07/13/1972

Profile Information

  • Location
    Bremerton, Washington

Recent Profile Visitors

982 profile views
  1. Would you settle for "they Flanderize everything they touch?" Disney has a strong brand and are very good at telling stories marketed to a very particular set of sensibilities. They also have a tendency to homogenize previously distinctive properties they acquire in order to broaden their appeal and maximize profits. That is neither evil nor, for anyone who is paying attention, controversial as an observation. Its how mega-corporations make money. The natural consequence, however, is that franchises with historically distinctive flavors are rendered bland by the standards of their historical consumers. That doesn't mean there aren't people who like what Disney has done, or even more people, or that Disney won't make a giant wads of cash. Plenty of people like it. Yet, Its not at all unreasonable, or unexpected, for a sizable chunk of the historical fan-base to say they don't like what Disney did to the franchise. Mocking them for expressing an aesthetic opinion you don't share just makes you look small. Let's say you grew up in Tejano country just north of the Rio Grand eating in a authentic Tex Mex restaurants. Its spicy and uses unique local ingredients. Then the owners decide to retire and sell to Taco Bell for a pretty penny. Would anyone be surprised to hear the old customers say "Taco Bell food sucks"? Would anyone really blame them? You can like Taco Bell and still understand why they wouldn't. Just move on, dude. Life is to short to cast stones over aesthetic differences.
  2. Only if people decide to take differences in aesthetic preferences and cinema criticism personally and then get nasty about it. If people just say what they thought and move on (like grown ups) it will be fine. I have a three pass rule for Internet discussions. If I've gone back and forth with something three times and we're just talking past one another or they have resorted to personal attacks I just walk away. Life is too short.
  3. I felt the sequels, especially the Rise of Skywalker, essentially retconned the entire franchise and in so doing undid the legacy of the original trilogy. After everything we went through with them, what was the point in the end? The empire was back, the emperor was back, the evil was never really defeated, all of their sacrifice and good works turned out to be for naught. It ended up being a crapsack galaxy with heroes robbed of all the things we had been led to believe they accomplished for the past thirty or so years. For me, while being impressive tent-pole spectacles, the sequels were an unnecessary and unsatisfying postscript to the Skywalker Saga. That's said in a way because the actors did a great job and deserved to be in a real story that built rather than demolished what came before. The action, cinematography, and effects were also top notch. It just ended up being far better carnival than cinema.
  4. I have a similar issue with that tree. Namely, if you do progress to Jedi Knight and then Jedi Master some of them cease to be conceptually appropriate.
  5. And some tables go for breadth over maximizing depth and remain capable yet possible to challenge without ramping up the kill-maim ratio. Its all a matter of table culture.
  6. I would say a "mook rule" is appropriate. Just rule that minions and rivals can, at the GMs discretion, be removed from the board.
  7. Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winnah! Yes, Cyber Tech.
  8. In our game the cargo was a clone of Anakin Skywalker in stasis.
  9. That is brilliant in a twisted sort of way.
  10. That's a lot of damage and more than I would ever encourage a GM to inflict on a single player character without talking with the player about how to challenge them without passing that threshold. One possible solution is the Droid Tech specification, which has talents that increase the maximum number of cybernetics. The only problem is that the character has to take the spec to make use of them. One option would be allowing a droid tech to use the talent on other characters more like the "signature vehicle" talent that riggers have. Its not a perfect solution, but it could help in crazy high crippling games.
  11. A valid concern, but in the Star Wars universe characters can recover from permanent damage. Example: Luke lost a hand.
  12. My experience has been that most people who haven't played the Hero System before being introduced to Fuzion do really like it. Conversely, I've found that people who were Hero-philes before being introduced to Fuzion aren't fans. Those are, or course, fairly broad generalizations and there are certainly exceptions. A lot of the controversy at the time came from the fact that Hero had gone fallow for many years after the heyday of 4th edition and had been kept alive by a very loyal fanbase and, despite being fallow, had a very active message board. There was a fairly complete unpublished draft of 5th edition at the time, but the owners decided let R Talsorian to use the champions IP and produce Fuzion as the successor system we were all supposed to love. That led to a lot of furor because while Fuzion is a nifty system (and easier to use) it is, nonetheless, less flexible and open than Hero is. I liken Hero to the Dos-prompt of the RPG world. You have to write a bunch of command-line code to compile the game you want to run with it! My own take is that Fuzion is a fine system, but I'm a guy who knows Hero by rote and can build Hero characters and run games without cracking the books. So, every time I open a Fuzion book I see its underlying DNA and start "thinking in Hero." And then I get maniacal because Hero is gamer Ninjitsu because its.... REAL ULTIMATE POWER!!!! Muahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!! Of course, its also damned time consuming....
×
×
  • Create New...