Jump to content

Vondy

Members
  • Content Count

    513
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Archlyte in Using old high XP characters in a new campaign   
    This last session we decided that the player characters had entered their "Iconic Stage."
    They are "mechanically complete" and will gain no further experience. 
    They will likely star in future adventures, but the goals and rewards will have to change.
     
  2. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Archlyte in M12-L Kimogila Cockpit Size   
    The M12-L Kimogila Heavy Starfighter is built for Hutts. Hutts are a bit larger than most humanoids. Sometimes, a lot larger. In your assorted opinions, would it be reasonable to assume to cockpit could be modified to have two human sized seats? A pilot seat and passenger seat?
  3. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Archlyte in Comedy has Consequences (Spoilers TLJ)   
    I would second Nameless Ronin's point: what kind of scene is it? Also, what kind of NPC is it? Some scenes and characters can benefit from, or be enhanced by, a little humor. However, in some cases, it is beneath the gravitas and dignity of the moment or role to crack-wise and make fun. There is also a question of "what kind of humor is it?" Are we talking madcap or farsical? Or just a quip, noted irony, or the well-formed pun? referenced between serious moments and not in the middle of them? A running gag that is only mentioned in low-tension moments.
    I thought the game of telephone Poe played with Hux in the opening of TLJ, while amusing and executed well by the actors, was not appropriate to the moment and served to diminish a primary antagonist. I also felt Vader's pun in Rogue One fell flat and did not do Vader a service. Timing and touch, and respect for the sensibility of scene and subject are key.s Are your players capable of being subtle and sophisticated, or is it madcap and campy? The former is less "intrusive" than the latter.
    Our game revolves around three jedi survivors eight years after Order 66 in an AU where Padme survived and shot-calling intelligence ops for Bail Organa's nascent rebel network. She's been known to make wry quips that lampshade tropes, etc, and we have a running gag in which she travels with a ton of luggage that leaves rebel flight-deck crews grumbling because she's a clothes horse. Its never brought up in serious moments, but as an example, when they were undercover at a casino the train of beleaguered porters was noticed, and even used as a sort of "shell game," distraction by the players. 
  4. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from 2P51 in M12-L Kimogila Cockpit Size   
    Whiskey in sippy-cups.
  5. Haha
    Vondy reacted to korjik in M12-L Kimogila Cockpit Size   
    I dont find it reasonable that hutts would be in starfighters actually. One high g turn and the bucket of frog things would be all over the cockpit! 
    Yeah, tho. At least two human sized seats. 
  6. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Archlyte in What makes someone a rules lawyer?   
    Here is the thing: I'm a GM who follows the "rule of cool." I know the rules as written fairly well and run without any house rules, but I'm willing to bend the letter of the law for a good story or to keep things moving along, and sometimes I do miss something. Yes, rules matter, but they aren't perfect and are intended to facilitate rather than impede everyone's fun.
    That said, you don't sound like much of a rules lawyer to me. Here is the number one rule: do not interrupt play to argue rules, especially minor ones. Unless it is a major rule with significant character-story stakes attached to it right then and there, wait until the session is over and then discuss it with your GM. You'll note I didn't say argue with your GM. Discuss it with them.
    Diplomacy is key. Not just in gaming, but in life. They may react strongly and come off like a "dictator" because you are interrupting, arguing, and publically correcting them mid-game. And, that can be, even if you are 100% right about the rules as written, quite rude. It may turn out that you and your GM have different play styles and irreconcilable differences. Or, you may discover that they are open to you helping them learn the rules out of game.
    I agree with the suggestion that, if you know the rules well enough to quote them without stopping the game to look stuff up, you can offer yourself up as a resource. I've been the rules reference at a table. Just remember: you are offering to help the GM during the game and are not there to police them or second guess them. When I'm running a game I have zero objections to a player saying "hey, doesn't that rule work like...?"
    I do, however, have little patience for players who make it feel like we're in a power-struggle or a constant game of one-upsmanship. Or who simply do stuff that throws off the flow of the game. That is tiresome and results in a player not being long for my table. Its not whether you are right and they are wrong. Its whether or not you effectively communicate in a way that builds bridges and brings results. Here is a method that might help: LERI.
    Ergo: Listening, Empathy, Rapport, Influence. If you want to communicate with the game master you have to talk to them. You need to listen to them in order to understand their position / viewpoint so that you can build a rapport with them through which to influence how the game runs. If you approach them as a friend and seek to reach a mutual understanding that works for both of you as opposed to walking in like adversary you have a much higher chance that they will be willing to listen to you, too.
    You see, that's the reason that rules lawyers are upopular: they are adversarial. Everything is a legal case that has to be argued and won. Its about winners, losers, and control. Outside of the courts, in the real world, that isn't how most things work. Especially when its just a hobby people are sitting down to socialize over and have some fun with. Negotiate, compromise, and have fun.
  7. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from SanguineAngel in Comedy has Consequences (Spoilers TLJ)   
    That one can reasonably explain a thing does not make that thing aethestically, emotionally, or naratively satisfying. Tone deaf musicians produce "bad music." A joke delivered at the wrong money can still get a laugh even while ruining the mood. Some viewers considered the writing and directing of this film, including its attempts at humor, sophomoric. 
    Arguing that juvenile humor is internally coherent doesn't change the fact that its juvenile. Those who found it such will not want it in their games. Those who loved it will. As such, there is no merit in arguing "the phone joke was funny because 'in world reasons.'" Its a question of artistry and whether someone found the work as a whole to have a consistent emotional tone, tenor, and tempo.
    Here is the thing: I thought the telephone joke was well-delivered and it made me laugh. The problem was, that was not the moment to go for a laugh. It ruined the mood and killed my suspension of disbelief. It pulled me out of the film. Not everyone wants whipped cream and chocolate sauce on their steak dinner. Sure, its sweet, but... ew. Just ew. 
  8. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from oneeyedmatt87 in Comedy has Consequences (Spoilers TLJ)   
    That one can reasonably explain a thing does not make that thing aethestically, emotionally, or naratively satisfying. Tone deaf musicians produce "bad music." A joke delivered at the wrong money can still get a laugh even while ruining the mood. Some viewers considered the writing and directing of this film, including its attempts at humor, sophomoric. 
    Arguing that juvenile humor is internally coherent doesn't change the fact that its juvenile. Those who found it such will not want it in their games. Those who loved it will. As such, there is no merit in arguing "the phone joke was funny because 'in world reasons.'" Its a question of artistry and whether someone found the work as a whole to have a consistent emotional tone, tenor, and tempo.
    Here is the thing: I thought the telephone joke was well-delivered and it made me laugh. The problem was, that was not the moment to go for a laugh. It ruined the mood and killed my suspension of disbelief. It pulled me out of the film. Not everyone wants whipped cream and chocolate sauce on their steak dinner. Sure, its sweet, but... ew. Just ew. 
  9. Like
    Vondy reacted to 2P51 in Ship art   
  10. Haha
    Vondy got a reaction from Absol197 in Warriors rejoice   
    Where is this Admirer tree? I'm fascinated!
  11. Like
    Vondy reacted to syrath in Warriors rejoice   
    Autocorrect wins, I surrender , should read Armorer (I'm in the UK and my auto correct wants me to spell it the original English spelling of Armourer but when using US English it would of course be Armorer and auto correct even gets the name wrong.
  12. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from StriderZessei in Warriors rejoice   
    I will say that I would have preferred to see the force rating in Juyo, but overall the specs are really good.
    And, in terms of being scary, the left side of the aAgressor tree and Juyo synergize extremely well.
    You end up with Fearsome-3, Intimidating-4, Terrify and Improved Terrify.
    Draws and ignites lightsaber: "Say HELLO to my LITTLE FRIEND!"
     
  13. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from StriderZessei in Warriors rejoice   
    My main bone of contention with the new films isn't the Mouse. My problem is JJ Abrams. The man thinks every franchise will benefit from the rapid frenetic-kinetic pacing and style of a superhero movie. His technique is to hit the beats, quips, and topes at 100+ mph and not bother with anything else. This cheeky action blockbuster zeitgeist has done a disservice to both Star Wars and Star Trek, IMO. Both franchises require pacing that allows the story to breath, the characters to resonate, and the mythology to build because, while they have a lot of action, there is more to them than that. But, that's just me, and I confess to being a culture and literature snob. 
  14. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from DaverWattra in Using old high XP characters in a new campaign   
    I mostly agree with what you are saying, especially vis-a-vis AoE and EotE. And you can scale the opposition fairly well even for high-experience characters. My experience with FAD, however, has been that the synergy of several force powers and saber-specs can lead some some some sublte exploits that can have unforseen tectonic effects on a character's combat effectiveness in play. This is why we decided to plateu in our game. We wanted to make sure opponents didn't have to be powerful force users to remain interesting. On the other hand, because most saber specs don't have force ratings, force users typically need at least 3 specs, whereas a AoE and EotE characters can usually become pros from dover on 2.
  15. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from awayputurwpn in Warriors rejoice   
    I will say that I would have preferred to see the force rating in Juyo, but overall the specs are really good.
    And, in terms of being scary, the left side of the aAgressor tree and Juyo synergize extremely well.
    You end up with Fearsome-3, Intimidating-4, Terrify and Improved Terrify.
    Draws and ignites lightsaber: "Say HELLO to my LITTLE FRIEND!"
     
  16. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from DaverWattra in Using old high XP characters in a new campaign   
    This is more difficult when high XP characters are highly-specialized "Pro From Dover" types who have maxed out their signature niche. A group of those kinds of characters will eventually outclass all reasonable opposition. On the other hand, a group of generalists built for breadth can often be used indefinately. They will be impressive and effective without dominating every single situation. Our group made a conscious decision to plateu and then switch to breadth over depth so that the characters would remain in the "playable zone." They all have three specs, but only  force ratings, key stats, and signature skills were pushed to 4. I would ask the players to "distill" their character concepts down to an agreed upon "playable zone." It will require some hard choices, but you may need to make a few exceptions. For instance, not being able to force leap as an incidental because that's too deep into a force power chart. That sounds silly, but when we started at knight-level play that was the one thing all of my players sunk points into right away. I would be very conservative about exceptions, but talk to the players about whether there is that one force power schtick that really makes the difference in conceptualizing the character. 
  17. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Random Bystander in Warriors rejoice   
    My main bone of contention with the new films isn't the Mouse. My problem is JJ Abrams. The man thinks every franchise will benefit from the rapid frenetic-kinetic pacing and style of a superhero movie. His technique is to hit the beats, quips, and topes at 100+ mph and not bother with anything else. This cheeky action blockbuster zeitgeist has done a disservice to both Star Wars and Star Trek, IMO. Both franchises require pacing that allows the story to breath, the characters to resonate, and the mythology to build because, while they have a lot of action, there is more to them than that. But, that's just me, and I confess to being a culture and literature snob. 
  18. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from whafrog in Using old high XP characters in a new campaign   
    This is more difficult when high XP characters are highly-specialized "Pro From Dover" types who have maxed out their signature niche. A group of those kinds of characters will eventually outclass all reasonable opposition. On the other hand, a group of generalists built for breadth can often be used indefinately. They will be impressive and effective without dominating every single situation. Our group made a conscious decision to plateu and then switch to breadth over depth so that the characters would remain in the "playable zone." They all have three specs, but only  force ratings, key stats, and signature skills were pushed to 4. I would ask the players to "distill" their character concepts down to an agreed upon "playable zone." It will require some hard choices, but you may need to make a few exceptions. For instance, not being able to force leap as an incidental because that's too deep into a force power chart. That sounds silly, but when we started at knight-level play that was the one thing all of my players sunk points into right away. I would be very conservative about exceptions, but talk to the players about whether there is that one force power schtick that really makes the difference in conceptualizing the character. 
  19. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Shock and Aweful in What makes someone a rules lawyer?   
    Here is the thing: I'm a GM who follows the "rule of cool." I know the rules as written fairly well and run without any house rules, but I'm willing to bend the letter of the law for a good story or to keep things moving along, and sometimes I do miss something. Yes, rules matter, but they aren't perfect and are intended to facilitate rather than impede everyone's fun.
    That said, you don't sound like much of a rules lawyer to me. Here is the number one rule: do not interrupt play to argue rules, especially minor ones. Unless it is a major rule with significant character-story stakes attached to it right then and there, wait until the session is over and then discuss it with your GM. You'll note I didn't say argue with your GM. Discuss it with them.
    Diplomacy is key. Not just in gaming, but in life. They may react strongly and come off like a "dictator" because you are interrupting, arguing, and publically correcting them mid-game. And, that can be, even if you are 100% right about the rules as written, quite rude. It may turn out that you and your GM have different play styles and irreconcilable differences. Or, you may discover that they are open to you helping them learn the rules out of game.
    I agree with the suggestion that, if you know the rules well enough to quote them without stopping the game to look stuff up, you can offer yourself up as a resource. I've been the rules reference at a table. Just remember: you are offering to help the GM during the game and are not there to police them or second guess them. When I'm running a game I have zero objections to a player saying "hey, doesn't that rule work like...?"
    I do, however, have little patience for players who make it feel like we're in a power-struggle or a constant game of one-upsmanship. Or who simply do stuff that throws off the flow of the game. That is tiresome and results in a player not being long for my table. Its not whether you are right and they are wrong. Its whether or not you effectively communicate in a way that builds bridges and brings results. Here is a method that might help: LERI.
    Ergo: Listening, Empathy, Rapport, Influence. If you want to communicate with the game master you have to talk to them. You need to listen to them in order to understand their position / viewpoint so that you can build a rapport with them through which to influence how the game runs. If you approach them as a friend and seek to reach a mutual understanding that works for both of you as opposed to walking in like adversary you have a much higher chance that they will be willing to listen to you, too.
    You see, that's the reason that rules lawyers are upopular: they are adversarial. Everything is a legal case that has to be argued and won. Its about winners, losers, and control. Outside of the courts, in the real world, that isn't how most things work. Especially when its just a hobby people are sitting down to socialize over and have some fun with. Negotiate, compromise, and have fun.
  20. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from LordBritish in I feel PvP should be a consensual RP Choice   
    Oh, I use "verisimilitude" all the time. I just don't nitpick when I hear other people use the term "realistic" because I know what they mean. As for "unecessary exposition" this is why I prefer to stick to "live action film canon" and treat everything else as apochryphal / optional. I find "less is more" really does apply when running a game that flows. Too much backstory, detail, and information dilutes the "high concept." I'm open to including elements from the cartoons / comics / novels / whatever if they serve the story or a player really loves it, but I'm not going to chain myself to it, either. Its too much work and not enough fun.
  21. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Tramp Graphics in Feint   
    I will say that what people are saying about Feint doesn't really line up with our group's experience. Feint does lose utility as you become more powerful if your opposition doesn't become more powerful with you. Remember: Makashi is a dueling style for one on one lightsaber combat. If you are a master and you are fighting chumps, then Feint isn't likely to be useful or come into play. That is true. But, if you are up against a more substantial foe who is pumping negative dice into your pool, Feint remains useful. It can even prove decisive. It all boils down to dice pool composition. 
  22. Haha
    Vondy got a reaction from p0lowww in Pacing: The Philosopher's Stone   
    Thanks. In terms of end-points and final scenes (e.g. "the denoument") I usually have a basic idea of where the high-level plot will go and a few ideas for memorable scenes, but I don't get too specific with the details because how we get there is often a whiplash inducing rollercoaster ride that lays wreck to all but the most general of plans. One of my players (and very dear friends) has been gaming with me for twenty-six years now, so he's on to most of my secrets. He once observed, "We're the ball in your giant ping-pong ball machine, aren't we?" He pretty much nailed it.
  23. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from p0lowww in Pacing: The Philosopher's Stone   
    One of the best antidotes for breaking out of a "slog" or a infusing some life into a boring session comes from the hard-boiled pulps:
    Ergo, if you plot is flagging or you find yourself stuck, do something dramatic, shake things up, and give the players something they must react to right them and there. Insofar as its not too crazy you can always retcon a rationale or do something down the road that will make it appear more sensible. Your players will often rationalize it for you themselves. My players often rave about my intricate plots and brilliant twists, but the truth is I'm usually running games by the seat of my pants, retconning my plots along with the players reactions, and inserting unplanned crazy-rumped-shenangigans to keep things interesting. "Oh, I see you've copped to my master plan you clever players, you!" 
    Those stories he wishes were better were the ones starring iconic hardboiled private eye Phillip Marlowe and are regarded as classics of the genre and were highly regarded and beloved in their day. Many of the sessions I wish had been better, and in which I made a radical (only semi-logical) course corrections mid-stream in, are among those my players find most memorable. 
    I've found this to go hand in hand with "have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand."  Keep doublng-down on your players and ramping up the stakes and problems until the final denoumant / big boss brawl / epic showdown / final dance fight / lovers quarrel ala Mr. and Mrs. Smith, etc. Just make sure there really is light at the end of that long dark tunnel.
  24. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from kaosoe in Feint   
    I will say that what people are saying about Feint doesn't really line up with our group's experience. Feint does lose utility as you become more powerful if your opposition doesn't become more powerful with you. Remember: Makashi is a dueling style for one on one lightsaber combat. If you are a master and you are fighting chumps, then Feint isn't likely to be useful or come into play. That is true. But, if you are up against a more substantial foe who is pumping negative dice into your pool, Feint remains useful. It can even prove decisive. It all boils down to dice pool composition. 
  25. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Archlyte in I feel PvP should be a consensual RP Choice   
    Oh, I use "verisimilitude" all the time. I just don't nitpick when I hear other people use the term "realistic" because I know what they mean. As for "unecessary exposition" this is why I prefer to stick to "live action film canon" and treat everything else as apochryphal / optional. I find "less is more" really does apply when running a game that flows. Too much backstory, detail, and information dilutes the "high concept." I'm open to including elements from the cartoons / comics / novels / whatever if they serve the story or a player really loves it, but I'm not going to chain myself to it, either. Its too much work and not enough fun.
×
×
  • Create New...