Jump to content

Vondy

Members
  • Content Count

    513
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Tramp Graphics in Imperial Navy Core Rulebook?   
    RANT WARNING
     
    Sure. And that is a part of Lucas' evolving interpretation of his own work that renders him an unreliable creator. He injected a weird dissonance into his creation that was at odds with what he'd created before. People can play all the disingenuous moral equivalency games they want to make an argument that the Empire (or separatists) can be seen as good guys "from a certain point of view" and that the republic was so deeply flawed that it could be taken as "the real bad guys." Not all "points of view" are equally valid. There were "Good Germans" fighting for the Nazis in WWII. So what?
    Sophomoric "look how smart I am because I twisted the source material out of historical and meaningful context" tom-foolery and the result of a radically altered narrative from what the original trilogy suggested is not profound. Yes, that "point of view" is given some weak contextual support by Lucas in this "heroes on both sides" throw-away platitude, but does that line hold water when we actually watch the movies? Not really. The Jedi are clearly hidebound and make some flawed moral choices, but Dooku, Palpatine, and Grevious, et all are clear cut villains seeking evil ends through evil means. That there are off-screen heroes fighting on both sides is utterly irrelevant because the movies aren't about them.
    The Clone Wars are the public face of an ancient struggle between the Jedi and Sith. That's a struggle between light and dark, peace and suffering, good and evil. That's what Star Wars has always been about. That Lucas and a morass of expanded universe writers muddied those waters can produce interesting stories, but it can also be problematic in that it drives the incessant and banal "certain point of view" arguments that recast villains as heroes. Yes, politically, the clone wars were fought between a deeply flawed republic at war with a bunch of plutocratic corporate overlords. Yes, there were good people fighting on both sides. But, in the end, who cares? Star Wars has never been about galactic politics.
    I saw the original star wars in the theaters. I grew up with that trilogy. Star Wars was a story with clear heroes and clear villains that served as a morality play about good, evil, and redemption. Luke is our Hero. Vader is our villain. Luke, in the end, redeems Vader despite all the evil he did for Palpatine. Star Wars has always boiled down to morality. If you are arguing galactic politics and not basic morality you have lost sight of the forest for the trees. It doesn't matter if the old republic was flawed, or that the trade federation and separatists were, respectively, cynical and useful idiots for the Sith. WThe Sith are the bad guys.
    Let's be really clear about this: Our heroes are Anakin (for a while), Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon, and Padme. Our villains are Dooku, Palpatine, Maul, and Grevious. Ironically, while Obi-Wan tells us that only Sith deal in black and white, its Anakin's insistence on his twisted point of view that makes it impossible for him to turn away from the dark side when Obi-Wan is trying to redeem him. He employs weak-sauce  justifications for mass murder, terror, despotism, and hatred. I find most of the arguments in favor of the separatists and, worse, the Empire, that fans make echo Vader beat for beat.  hen you enslave entire species, destroy entire planets, and seek "peace, justice, and freedom" through mass murder, terrorism, and despotism, you aren't the good guys, no matter what you tell yourself.
    Obi-Wan said it all: "You have let this dark lord twist your mind until you have become the very thing you swore to destroy."
    Or, to quote the Maharal of Prague: "If you want to sharpen your mind play chess; don't distort the truth."
    Star Wars I-III are a morality play about the fall of Anakin Skywalker. Star Wars IV-VI are morality play about the redemption of Anakin Skywalker. Star Wars VII-IX are... honestly, I have no idea what they are about. Everything else is just commentary.
    And, with that, I am not commenting on this thread again.
     
     
  2. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Galakk Fyyar in Imperial Navy Core Rulebook?   
    Lucas has explained Star Wars from his own "evolving" and self-contradictory points of view over the past 40 years. 
    As a result, anything Lucas says is only true "from a certain point of view" and "at a certain point in time."
    This is without working a mob of Expanded Universe writers with their own points of view and contradictory additions int the mix.
    For this reason, I generally only reference primary sources (on-screen canon) and take Lucas with a liberal dose of salt.
    I'm sure you've heard of the unreliable narrator in literature? Lucas is an unreliable creator.
  3. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Lorne in Party size...   
    For me, 1-3. I've run a lot of solo sessions and arcs over the years and love them with a good player. The ideal group for me, however, is 2-3 is ideal because I prefer to focus more on intrigue, role-play, and character arcs. That's not to say we don't have Burly Brawls and Action! But, its less than a lot of other games. I've run successful games for bigger groups, but find I don't care for those as much.
  4. Haha
    Vondy got a reaction from GreatCatWizard in WWII Situations Suggestions   
    If your group is funny: Hogan's Heroes. A plucky team of Rebel prisoners who routinely break out of the Imperial military stockade to carry about rebel operations right under the Empire's noses. The Imperial Army Commander and senior-most seargeant are, of course, affably unwitting accomplices.
  5. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Tramp Graphics in Imperial Navy Core Rulebook?   
    RANT WARNING
     
    Sure. And that is a part of Lucas' evolving interpretation of his own work that renders him an unreliable creator. He injected a weird dissonance into his creation that was at odds with what he'd created before. People can play all the disingenuous moral equivalency games they want to make an argument that the Empire (or separatists) can be seen as good guys "from a certain point of view" and that the republic was so deeply flawed that it could be taken as "the real bad guys." Not all "points of view" are equally valid. There were "Good Germans" fighting for the Nazis in WWII. So what?
    Sophomoric "look how smart I am because I twisted the source material out of historical and meaningful context" tom-foolery and the result of a radically altered narrative from what the original trilogy suggested is not profound. Yes, that "point of view" is given some weak contextual support by Lucas in this "heroes on both sides" throw-away platitude, but does that line hold water when we actually watch the movies? Not really. The Jedi are clearly hidebound and make some flawed moral choices, but Dooku, Palpatine, and Grevious, et all are clear cut villains seeking evil ends through evil means. That there are off-screen heroes fighting on both sides is utterly irrelevant because the movies aren't about them.
    The Clone Wars are the public face of an ancient struggle between the Jedi and Sith. That's a struggle between light and dark, peace and suffering, good and evil. That's what Star Wars has always been about. That Lucas and a morass of expanded universe writers muddied those waters can produce interesting stories, but it can also be problematic in that it drives the incessant and banal "certain point of view" arguments that recast villains as heroes. Yes, politically, the clone wars were fought between a deeply flawed republic at war with a bunch of plutocratic corporate overlords. Yes, there were good people fighting on both sides. But, in the end, who cares? Star Wars has never been about galactic politics.
    I saw the original star wars in the theaters. I grew up with that trilogy. Star Wars was a story with clear heroes and clear villains that served as a morality play about good, evil, and redemption. Luke is our Hero. Vader is our villain. Luke, in the end, redeems Vader despite all the evil he did for Palpatine. Star Wars has always boiled down to morality. If you are arguing galactic politics and not basic morality you have lost sight of the forest for the trees. It doesn't matter if the old republic was flawed, or that the trade federation and separatists were, respectively, cynical and useful idiots for the Sith. WThe Sith are the bad guys.
    Let's be really clear about this: Our heroes are Anakin (for a while), Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon, and Padme. Our villains are Dooku, Palpatine, Maul, and Grevious. Ironically, while Obi-Wan tells us that only Sith deal in black and white, its Anakin's insistence on his twisted point of view that makes it impossible for him to turn away from the dark side when Obi-Wan is trying to redeem him. He employs weak-sauce  justifications for mass murder, terror, despotism, and hatred. I find most of the arguments in favor of the separatists and, worse, the Empire, that fans make echo Vader beat for beat.  hen you enslave entire species, destroy entire planets, and seek "peace, justice, and freedom" through mass murder, terrorism, and despotism, you aren't the good guys, no matter what you tell yourself.
    Obi-Wan said it all: "You have let this dark lord twist your mind until you have become the very thing you swore to destroy."
    Or, to quote the Maharal of Prague: "If you want to sharpen your mind play chess; don't distort the truth."
    Star Wars I-III are a morality play about the fall of Anakin Skywalker. Star Wars IV-VI are morality play about the redemption of Anakin Skywalker. Star Wars VII-IX are... honestly, I have no idea what they are about. Everything else is just commentary.
    And, with that, I am not commenting on this thread again.
     
     
  6. Haha
    Vondy got a reaction from Tramp Graphics in Dawn of Rebellion Sourcebook   
    Personally, stats for camels are indispensable for any Star Wars game.
    I know you meant "cameos," but I couldn't resist. 😈
  7. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Tramp Graphics in Imperial Navy Core Rulebook?   
    RANT WARNING
     
    Sure. And that is a part of Lucas' evolving interpretation of his own work that renders him an unreliable creator. He injected a weird dissonance into his creation that was at odds with what he'd created before. People can play all the disingenuous moral equivalency games they want to make an argument that the Empire (or separatists) can be seen as good guys "from a certain point of view" and that the republic was so deeply flawed that it could be taken as "the real bad guys." Not all "points of view" are equally valid. There were "Good Germans" fighting for the Nazis in WWII. So what?
    Sophomoric "look how smart I am because I twisted the source material out of historical and meaningful context" tom-foolery and the result of a radically altered narrative from what the original trilogy suggested is not profound. Yes, that "point of view" is given some weak contextual support by Lucas in this "heroes on both sides" throw-away platitude, but does that line hold water when we actually watch the movies? Not really. The Jedi are clearly hidebound and make some flawed moral choices, but Dooku, Palpatine, and Grevious, et all are clear cut villains seeking evil ends through evil means. That there are off-screen heroes fighting on both sides is utterly irrelevant because the movies aren't about them.
    The Clone Wars are the public face of an ancient struggle between the Jedi and Sith. That's a struggle between light and dark, peace and suffering, good and evil. That's what Star Wars has always been about. That Lucas and a morass of expanded universe writers muddied those waters can produce interesting stories, but it can also be problematic in that it drives the incessant and banal "certain point of view" arguments that recast villains as heroes. Yes, politically, the clone wars were fought between a deeply flawed republic at war with a bunch of plutocratic corporate overlords. Yes, there were good people fighting on both sides. But, in the end, who cares? Star Wars has never been about galactic politics.
    I saw the original star wars in the theaters. I grew up with that trilogy. Star Wars was a story with clear heroes and clear villains that served as a morality play about good, evil, and redemption. Luke is our Hero. Vader is our villain. Luke, in the end, redeems Vader despite all the evil he did for Palpatine. Star Wars has always boiled down to morality. If you are arguing galactic politics and not basic morality you have lost sight of the forest for the trees. It doesn't matter if the old republic was flawed, or that the trade federation and separatists were, respectively, cynical and useful idiots for the Sith. WThe Sith are the bad guys.
    Let's be really clear about this: Our heroes are Anakin (for a while), Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon, and Padme. Our villains are Dooku, Palpatine, Maul, and Grevious. Ironically, while Obi-Wan tells us that only Sith deal in black and white, its Anakin's insistence on his twisted point of view that makes it impossible for him to turn away from the dark side when Obi-Wan is trying to redeem him. He employs weak-sauce  justifications for mass murder, terror, despotism, and hatred. I find most of the arguments in favor of the separatists and, worse, the Empire, that fans make echo Vader beat for beat.  hen you enslave entire species, destroy entire planets, and seek "peace, justice, and freedom" through mass murder, terrorism, and despotism, you aren't the good guys, no matter what you tell yourself.
    Obi-Wan said it all: "You have let this dark lord twist your mind until you have become the very thing you swore to destroy."
    Or, to quote the Maharal of Prague: "If you want to sharpen your mind play chess; don't distort the truth."
    Star Wars I-III are a morality play about the fall of Anakin Skywalker. Star Wars IV-VI are morality play about the redemption of Anakin Skywalker. Star Wars VII-IX are... honestly, I have no idea what they are about. Everything else is just commentary.
    And, with that, I am not commenting on this thread again.
     
     
  8. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Tramp Graphics in Imperial Navy Core Rulebook?   
    RANT WARNING
     
    Sure. And that is a part of Lucas' evolving interpretation of his own work that renders him an unreliable creator. He injected a weird dissonance into his creation that was at odds with what he'd created before. People can play all the disingenuous moral equivalency games they want to make an argument that the Empire (or separatists) can be seen as good guys "from a certain point of view" and that the republic was so deeply flawed that it could be taken as "the real bad guys." Not all "points of view" are equally valid. There were "Good Germans" fighting for the Nazis in WWII. So what?
    Sophomoric "look how smart I am because I twisted the source material out of historical and meaningful context" tom-foolery and the result of a radically altered narrative from what the original trilogy suggested is not profound. Yes, that "point of view" is given some weak contextual support by Lucas in this "heroes on both sides" throw-away platitude, but does that line hold water when we actually watch the movies? Not really. The Jedi are clearly hidebound and make some flawed moral choices, but Dooku, Palpatine, and Grevious, et all are clear cut villains seeking evil ends through evil means. That there are off-screen heroes fighting on both sides is utterly irrelevant because the movies aren't about them.
    The Clone Wars are the public face of an ancient struggle between the Jedi and Sith. That's a struggle between light and dark, peace and suffering, good and evil. That's what Star Wars has always been about. That Lucas and a morass of expanded universe writers muddied those waters can produce interesting stories, but it can also be problematic in that it drives the incessant and banal "certain point of view" arguments that recast villains as heroes. Yes, politically, the clone wars were fought between a deeply flawed republic at war with a bunch of plutocratic corporate overlords. Yes, there were good people fighting on both sides. But, in the end, who cares? Star Wars has never been about galactic politics.
    I saw the original star wars in the theaters. I grew up with that trilogy. Star Wars was a story with clear heroes and clear villains that served as a morality play about good, evil, and redemption. Luke is our Hero. Vader is our villain. Luke, in the end, redeems Vader despite all the evil he did for Palpatine. Star Wars has always boiled down to morality. If you are arguing galactic politics and not basic morality you have lost sight of the forest for the trees. It doesn't matter if the old republic was flawed, or that the trade federation and separatists were, respectively, cynical and useful idiots for the Sith. WThe Sith are the bad guys.
    Let's be really clear about this: Our heroes are Anakin (for a while), Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon, and Padme. Our villains are Dooku, Palpatine, Maul, and Grevious. Ironically, while Obi-Wan tells us that only Sith deal in black and white, its Anakin's insistence on his twisted point of view that makes it impossible for him to turn away from the dark side when Obi-Wan is trying to redeem him. He employs weak-sauce  justifications for mass murder, terror, despotism, and hatred. I find most of the arguments in favor of the separatists and, worse, the Empire, that fans make echo Vader beat for beat.  hen you enslave entire species, destroy entire planets, and seek "peace, justice, and freedom" through mass murder, terrorism, and despotism, you aren't the good guys, no matter what you tell yourself.
    Obi-Wan said it all: "You have let this dark lord twist your mind until you have become the very thing you swore to destroy."
    Or, to quote the Maharal of Prague: "If you want to sharpen your mind play chess; don't distort the truth."
    Star Wars I-III are a morality play about the fall of Anakin Skywalker. Star Wars IV-VI are morality play about the redemption of Anakin Skywalker. Star Wars VII-IX are... honestly, I have no idea what they are about. Everything else is just commentary.
    And, with that, I am not commenting on this thread again.
     
     
  9. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Tramp Graphics in Imperial Navy Core Rulebook?   
    RANT WARNING
     
    Sure. And that is a part of Lucas' evolving interpretation of his own work that renders him an unreliable creator. He injected a weird dissonance into his creation that was at odds with what he'd created before. People can play all the disingenuous moral equivalency games they want to make an argument that the Empire (or separatists) can be seen as good guys "from a certain point of view" and that the republic was so deeply flawed that it could be taken as "the real bad guys." Not all "points of view" are equally valid. There were "Good Germans" fighting for the Nazis in WWII. So what?
    Sophomoric "look how smart I am because I twisted the source material out of historical and meaningful context" tom-foolery and the result of a radically altered narrative from what the original trilogy suggested is not profound. Yes, that "point of view" is given some weak contextual support by Lucas in this "heroes on both sides" throw-away platitude, but does that line hold water when we actually watch the movies? Not really. The Jedi are clearly hidebound and make some flawed moral choices, but Dooku, Palpatine, and Grevious, et all are clear cut villains seeking evil ends through evil means. That there are off-screen heroes fighting on both sides is utterly irrelevant because the movies aren't about them.
    The Clone Wars are the public face of an ancient struggle between the Jedi and Sith. That's a struggle between light and dark, peace and suffering, good and evil. That's what Star Wars has always been about. That Lucas and a morass of expanded universe writers muddied those waters can produce interesting stories, but it can also be problematic in that it drives the incessant and banal "certain point of view" arguments that recast villains as heroes. Yes, politically, the clone wars were fought between a deeply flawed republic at war with a bunch of plutocratic corporate overlords. Yes, there were good people fighting on both sides. But, in the end, who cares? Star Wars has never been about galactic politics.
    I saw the original star wars in the theaters. I grew up with that trilogy. Star Wars was a story with clear heroes and clear villains that served as a morality play about good, evil, and redemption. Luke is our Hero. Vader is our villain. Luke, in the end, redeems Vader despite all the evil he did for Palpatine. Star Wars has always boiled down to morality. If you are arguing galactic politics and not basic morality you have lost sight of the forest for the trees. It doesn't matter if the old republic was flawed, or that the trade federation and separatists were, respectively, cynical and useful idiots for the Sith. WThe Sith are the bad guys.
    Let's be really clear about this: Our heroes are Anakin (for a while), Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon, and Padme. Our villains are Dooku, Palpatine, Maul, and Grevious. Ironically, while Obi-Wan tells us that only Sith deal in black and white, its Anakin's insistence on his twisted point of view that makes it impossible for him to turn away from the dark side when Obi-Wan is trying to redeem him. He employs weak-sauce  justifications for mass murder, terror, despotism, and hatred. I find most of the arguments in favor of the separatists and, worse, the Empire, that fans make echo Vader beat for beat.  hen you enslave entire species, destroy entire planets, and seek "peace, justice, and freedom" through mass murder, terrorism, and despotism, you aren't the good guys, no matter what you tell yourself.
    Obi-Wan said it all: "You have let this dark lord twist your mind until you have become the very thing you swore to destroy."
    Or, to quote the Maharal of Prague: "If you want to sharpen your mind play chess; don't distort the truth."
    Star Wars I-III are a morality play about the fall of Anakin Skywalker. Star Wars IV-VI are morality play about the redemption of Anakin Skywalker. Star Wars VII-IX are... honestly, I have no idea what they are about. Everything else is just commentary.
    And, with that, I am not commenting on this thread again.
     
     
  10. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Galakk Fyyar in Imperial Navy Core Rulebook?   
    Lucas has explained Star Wars from his own "evolving" and self-contradictory points of view over the past 40 years. 
    As a result, anything Lucas says is only true "from a certain point of view" and "at a certain point in time."
    This is without working a mob of Expanded Universe writers with their own points of view and contradictory additions int the mix.
    For this reason, I generally only reference primary sources (on-screen canon) and take Lucas with a liberal dose of salt.
    I'm sure you've heard of the unreliable narrator in literature? Lucas is an unreliable creator.
  11. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Tramp Graphics in Imperial Navy Core Rulebook?   
    RANT WARNING
     
    Sure. And that is a part of Lucas' evolving interpretation of his own work that renders him an unreliable creator. He injected a weird dissonance into his creation that was at odds with what he'd created before. People can play all the disingenuous moral equivalency games they want to make an argument that the Empire (or separatists) can be seen as good guys "from a certain point of view" and that the republic was so deeply flawed that it could be taken as "the real bad guys." Not all "points of view" are equally valid. There were "Good Germans" fighting for the Nazis in WWII. So what?
    Sophomoric "look how smart I am because I twisted the source material out of historical and meaningful context" tom-foolery and the result of a radically altered narrative from what the original trilogy suggested is not profound. Yes, that "point of view" is given some weak contextual support by Lucas in this "heroes on both sides" throw-away platitude, but does that line hold water when we actually watch the movies? Not really. The Jedi are clearly hidebound and make some flawed moral choices, but Dooku, Palpatine, and Grevious, et all are clear cut villains seeking evil ends through evil means. That there are off-screen heroes fighting on both sides is utterly irrelevant because the movies aren't about them.
    The Clone Wars are the public face of an ancient struggle between the Jedi and Sith. That's a struggle between light and dark, peace and suffering, good and evil. That's what Star Wars has always been about. That Lucas and a morass of expanded universe writers muddied those waters can produce interesting stories, but it can also be problematic in that it drives the incessant and banal "certain point of view" arguments that recast villains as heroes. Yes, politically, the clone wars were fought between a deeply flawed republic at war with a bunch of plutocratic corporate overlords. Yes, there were good people fighting on both sides. But, in the end, who cares? Star Wars has never been about galactic politics.
    I saw the original star wars in the theaters. I grew up with that trilogy. Star Wars was a story with clear heroes and clear villains that served as a morality play about good, evil, and redemption. Luke is our Hero. Vader is our villain. Luke, in the end, redeems Vader despite all the evil he did for Palpatine. Star Wars has always boiled down to morality. If you are arguing galactic politics and not basic morality you have lost sight of the forest for the trees. It doesn't matter if the old republic was flawed, or that the trade federation and separatists were, respectively, cynical and useful idiots for the Sith. WThe Sith are the bad guys.
    Let's be really clear about this: Our heroes are Anakin (for a while), Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon, and Padme. Our villains are Dooku, Palpatine, Maul, and Grevious. Ironically, while Obi-Wan tells us that only Sith deal in black and white, its Anakin's insistence on his twisted point of view that makes it impossible for him to turn away from the dark side when Obi-Wan is trying to redeem him. He employs weak-sauce  justifications for mass murder, terror, despotism, and hatred. I find most of the arguments in favor of the separatists and, worse, the Empire, that fans make echo Vader beat for beat.  hen you enslave entire species, destroy entire planets, and seek "peace, justice, and freedom" through mass murder, terrorism, and despotism, you aren't the good guys, no matter what you tell yourself.
    Obi-Wan said it all: "You have let this dark lord twist your mind until you have become the very thing you swore to destroy."
    Or, to quote the Maharal of Prague: "If you want to sharpen your mind play chess; don't distort the truth."
    Star Wars I-III are a morality play about the fall of Anakin Skywalker. Star Wars IV-VI are morality play about the redemption of Anakin Skywalker. Star Wars VII-IX are... honestly, I have no idea what they are about. Everything else is just commentary.
    And, with that, I am not commenting on this thread again.
     
     
  12. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from penpenpen in Some doubts on Lightsaber Mods   
    Personally, I had no idea that it could be raining emitters, let alone crystals. That's fascinating and this thread has taught me a lot!
  13. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from penpenpen in You get 3500 xp   
    I build three 1166 point characters.
    Action economy is the thing.
  14. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Galakk Fyyar in Imperial Navy Core Rulebook?   
    Lucas has explained Star Wars from his own "evolving" and self-contradictory points of view over the past 40 years. 
    As a result, anything Lucas says is only true "from a certain point of view" and "at a certain point in time."
    This is without working a mob of Expanded Universe writers with their own points of view and contradictory additions int the mix.
    For this reason, I generally only reference primary sources (on-screen canon) and take Lucas with a liberal dose of salt.
    I'm sure you've heard of the unreliable narrator in literature? Lucas is an unreliable creator.
  15. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Galakk Fyyar in Imperial Navy Core Rulebook?   
    Lucas has explained Star Wars from his own "evolving" and self-contradictory points of view over the past 40 years. 
    As a result, anything Lucas says is only true "from a certain point of view" and "at a certain point in time."
    This is without working a mob of Expanded Universe writers with their own points of view and contradictory additions int the mix.
    For this reason, I generally only reference primary sources (on-screen canon) and take Lucas with a liberal dose of salt.
    I'm sure you've heard of the unreliable narrator in literature? Lucas is an unreliable creator.
  16. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from penpenpen in You get 3500 xp   
    I build three 1166 point characters.
    Action economy is the thing.
  17. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from penpenpen in Some doubts on Lightsaber Mods   
    Personally, I had no idea that it could be raining emitters, let alone crystals. That's fascinating and this thread has taught me a lot!
  18. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Underachiever599 in High powered characters question relating to Obiwan   
    My players love the kooky dice, but hate the "wall of talents" and trying to remember everything their characters could do during a session. Often times they would forget. And me? I'm not going to remember what all three player characters and all the NPCs can do while making seat of my pants decisions running a game. We decided, when the player characters reached three full trees, dipped into a signature talent tree, and had 4-5 force powers with one or two highly upgraded, to render the characters "iconic." In other words, we stripped them down, figured out their core concepts and abilities, rebuilt them like they were NPCs. We also renamed adversary "protagonist" and used that instead of remembering the sense upgrade (they all had it maxed out). I was initially concerned that would be too much of a power up (not committing a force die), but after running the characters for a while, giving each 2 "protagonist dice" hit the mark.
    This would not work for groups with players whose primary psychological reward is constant advancement and power-ups, but my group reached a point where they felt like they had the characters they wanted and had become more interested in the in-story rewards and characters arcs. 
  19. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Ghostofman in Starship defense supposed to equate to shields?   
    I've always taken Star Wars shields to operate more like "deflectors." Ergo, an angled energy field or field of charged particles that serve to redirect rather than absorb incoming fire.  As such, range and angle of attack vis-a-vis the deflectors would be critical, as would the intensity of the field vs. the strength of the attack. Big ships simply generate much more powerful fields at a greater distance from the hull than small ships, which would redirect or dissipate larger blasts from more angles (unless you are a small ship inside the field).
    A more common scenario would be the Faclon vs. a tie fighter. The tie-fighter will be jockeying for a direct shot with an angle of attack that can score a hit rather than being deflected. Whoever is flying the Falcon is making the opposite effort: keep them firing at the area the deflectors are angled until you can work a firing solution for your turret.
    Its a similar, but not identical, principle to the front armor of modern battle tanks. They are angled so as to deflect the majority of the blast away from the crew compartment when struck. Several nations have programs to take this to a science fiction level. The US, UK, and Israel all have "force field" development programs for tanks. The general principle is a supercapacitor energizes the armor material with an electromagnetic charge that, if the discharge is timed correctly, repels the incoming fire and reduces or eliminates the force the armor has to absorb.
  20. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from penpenpen in Some doubts on Lightsaber Mods   
    Personally, I had no idea that it could be raining emitters, let alone crystals. That's fascinating and this thread has taught me a lot!
  21. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Silim in I Have you now   
    My personal take is that fans have a fetishistic tendency to overestimate and inflate iconic character's abilities. Add in the gamer tendency to maximize power-crunch and enough experience to build Jedi Masters in-their-own-right and perspective is lost.  What do we actually see Vader do in the movies?
    He takes down a corridor filled with rebel troopers. He force chokes some dudes.  He fights Obi-Wan Kenobi in a lightsaber duel on the Death Star, but Kenobi lets him win. He force chokes some dudes. He leads the raid on Echo Base and some snow troopers die while flanking him. He force chokes some more dudes. He fights Luke Skywalker (a Padawan) in the Cloud City and wins handily. He force chokes some more dudes. He fights Luke Skywalker (a greenhorn Jedi Knight) in the Throne Room and loses. He chokes out due to respirator removal. Yes, Vader is big and scary. Yes, Vader is "The Dragon." But nothing in the movie canon suggests he can take down a group of Jedi Masters single handedly.
    I would build Luke in RoTJ with FR 3, Lightsaber-4, Improved Parry-4, Improved Reflect-4, and unmatched destiny. He's a "Jedi Knight," but not really a master, and he should have lost when stacked up against Vader pound for pound. He made liberal use of destiny points and drew on his hate to take Vader down before realizing that was not the Jedi way.
    Now, if we include Rebels, we do see Vader:
    Take on Ezra and Kannan at one time. Basically, a Padawan close to knight-level ability and a newbie padawan. Fight eventually overwhelm Asokha. Grown up Asokha is formidable and basically a full-fledged Jedi Knight in-her-own-right. Again, we see nothing to suggest Vader should be able to take down a group of Jedi Masters or even a group of fully-trained Jedi Knights. In other words, there is no evidence he should be able to take down a group of player characters who have risen to become full-fledged Jedi Knights (or Masters) in their own right.
    Nor do we ever see Vader put himself in a position where he would be forced to fight such a group. He does not engage if he doesn't have the advantage. His biggest strength is that he's smart and picks his battles. He seeks to control the ground, ensure numerical advantage (at least qualitatively-speaking), and to maintain the initiative.
    Honestly, if Vader is in a slug-fest with 3+ Jedi all at once on neutral ground with no backup the game-master has made a serious error and, I will say it, is doing it wrong. Our group has three Jedi around the book-Ahsoka's level and I would never let that happen. I'd make sure that no more than 1-2 could engage him at once, I'd engineer the space to have elements he could use to his advantage, and he'd have some sort of back-up on hand or ticking-clock or objective in play to complicate the issue.
    They have gone up against him once and their goal was a fighting withdrawal. One of them put up an impressive fight and held him long-enough to make it a "win" in their book, but that character has three full trees, was built for saber fighting, and the player was extremely creative and had hot dice. Our groups compact is, when a character gets to that point they become iconic in their own right and are rebuilt akin to the iconic's in the book. Aside from tweaks, what growth do they need?
    If a character has 3600-experience and 9 trees (just wow) they have outgrown the intended parameters the system was designed around and deserve to give Vader a single-handed beat down. There comes a point where linear character growth turns you into a god among gods and we have left the realm of mere mortals. It becomes the stuff of comic books and videogames. Oh, look, its Starkiller! More power to you! But, at the same time you can't have unlimited linear growth without, at some point, breaking the system and exceeding reasonable interpretations of the source material.
  22. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Silim in I Have you now   
    My personal take is that fans have a fetishistic tendency to overestimate and inflate iconic character's abilities. Add in the gamer tendency to maximize power-crunch and enough experience to build Jedi Masters in-their-own-right and perspective is lost.  What do we actually see Vader do in the movies?
    He takes down a corridor filled with rebel troopers. He force chokes some dudes.  He fights Obi-Wan Kenobi in a lightsaber duel on the Death Star, but Kenobi lets him win. He force chokes some dudes. He leads the raid on Echo Base and some snow troopers die while flanking him. He force chokes some more dudes. He fights Luke Skywalker (a Padawan) in the Cloud City and wins handily. He force chokes some more dudes. He fights Luke Skywalker (a greenhorn Jedi Knight) in the Throne Room and loses. He chokes out due to respirator removal. Yes, Vader is big and scary. Yes, Vader is "The Dragon." But nothing in the movie canon suggests he can take down a group of Jedi Masters single handedly.
    I would build Luke in RoTJ with FR 3, Lightsaber-4, Improved Parry-4, Improved Reflect-4, and unmatched destiny. He's a "Jedi Knight," but not really a master, and he should have lost when stacked up against Vader pound for pound. He made liberal use of destiny points and drew on his hate to take Vader down before realizing that was not the Jedi way.
    Now, if we include Rebels, we do see Vader:
    Take on Ezra and Kannan at one time. Basically, a Padawan close to knight-level ability and a newbie padawan. Fight eventually overwhelm Asokha. Grown up Asokha is formidable and basically a full-fledged Jedi Knight in-her-own-right. Again, we see nothing to suggest Vader should be able to take down a group of Jedi Masters or even a group of fully-trained Jedi Knights. In other words, there is no evidence he should be able to take down a group of player characters who have risen to become full-fledged Jedi Knights (or Masters) in their own right.
    Nor do we ever see Vader put himself in a position where he would be forced to fight such a group. He does not engage if he doesn't have the advantage. His biggest strength is that he's smart and picks his battles. He seeks to control the ground, ensure numerical advantage (at least qualitatively-speaking), and to maintain the initiative.
    Honestly, if Vader is in a slug-fest with 3+ Jedi all at once on neutral ground with no backup the game-master has made a serious error and, I will say it, is doing it wrong. Our group has three Jedi around the book-Ahsoka's level and I would never let that happen. I'd make sure that no more than 1-2 could engage him at once, I'd engineer the space to have elements he could use to his advantage, and he'd have some sort of back-up on hand or ticking-clock or objective in play to complicate the issue.
    They have gone up against him once and their goal was a fighting withdrawal. One of them put up an impressive fight and held him long-enough to make it a "win" in their book, but that character has three full trees, was built for saber fighting, and the player was extremely creative and had hot dice. Our groups compact is, when a character gets to that point they become iconic in their own right and are rebuilt akin to the iconic's in the book. Aside from tweaks, what growth do they need?
    If a character has 3600-experience and 9 trees (just wow) they have outgrown the intended parameters the system was designed around and deserve to give Vader a single-handed beat down. There comes a point where linear character growth turns you into a god among gods and we have left the realm of mere mortals. It becomes the stuff of comic books and videogames. Oh, look, its Starkiller! More power to you! But, at the same time you can't have unlimited linear growth without, at some point, breaking the system and exceeding reasonable interpretations of the source material.
  23. Haha
    Vondy got a reaction from Tramp Graphics in Dawn of Rebellion Sourcebook   
    Personally, stats for camels are indispensable for any Star Wars game.
    I know you meant "cameos," but I couldn't resist. 😈
  24. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from slope123 in Knight Level Play   
    Our group doesn't do per session XP. Instead, I prepare a story arc intended to run 3-5 sessions with character development handled when it over. Players generally tell me their development goals ahead of time and I often (not always) work that into the challenges or theme of the arc. Development is usually a few talents from a tree, improving force powers, and / or a skill improvement. It usually amounts to 40-50 experience worth of improvement. Over the long-term its slower than the recommended experience awards, but its less incremental and feels more like a "power up" to the players, which keeps them satisfied. Characters in our game also start a little stronger (knight level plus some resources) so the slower rise doesn't feel like an acute issue in the early game.
  25. Haha
    Vondy got a reaction from GreatCatWizard in WWII Situations Suggestions   
    If your group is funny: Hogan's Heroes. A plucky team of Rebel prisoners who routinely break out of the Imperial military stockade to carry about rebel operations right under the Empire's noses. The Imperial Army Commander and senior-most seargeant are, of course, affably unwitting accomplices.
×