tunewalker

Members
  • Content count

    151
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About tunewalker

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

374 profile views
  1. I know this is a bit of a necro, and I was ultimately curious as to how you guys would have approached my primary AoR character. I made a Quartermaster/ Analyst Diplomat with the Duty of Resources Acquisition I was CONSTANTLY trying to make money and set up trade deals or straight out steal things for the alliance. My character WOULD pocket quite a few things but the thought process was always I needed money to make money to acquire more stuff for the alliance like half my profits would go to the alliance while the other half was put into my groups current operations, I had a very real habit of having my group never ask for requisitions from the alliance if they needed something that wasn't a ship I figured we could probably get it ourselves and not burden the Rebellion with it (stole a ship from the Empire a couple times as well.... so not always did we need a ship either.) I think a couple times they would go over my head, but that was only because the Spy or the Commander of my group was playing something close to the chest and didn't want me accidentally blabbering something or having it get tortured out of me if I got caught while I was stealing or if a deal went sideways and I was turned in, but any way the idea for the character was all about getting stuff for the group to use and getting more assets for the Rebellion to use for other groups that were less self sufficient.
  2. So reading through the original post I was confused by something.... "story based xp" I thought that was the way the game already worked outside the Beginner game. From my understanding of the Core rule book players receive XP at the end of a session based on what the group has accomplished in the story in addition to gaining bonus xp for sticking to a motivation or the like. I don't really understand the difference between the way the system currently works and "story XP". The other thing I find kind of weird is "narrative initiative" it sounds cool and like it would be a lot of fun, however I worry about a class like a Commander from Age of Rebellion and I worry even more about any character that decided to put points into Willpower for a characteristic. Willpower only has 3 skills that it is associated with, Discipline, Coercion and Vigilance, the 2 most used in my games are Discipline (keeping your character's emotions in check especially against charm and fear) and Vigilance (making sure you are ready for "anything") for players that end up going Willpower they seem to just like getting Coercion as a side effect rather then the main purpose. By heavily diminishing Initiative rolls especially with Vigilance I feel like one of the weakest Characteristics is simply made weaker as really all the player would want to do is put points into Discipline and just let their willpower sit at 1 if they can get away with it. I would think in this case you may just want to tie Coercion and Discipline into another trait and eliminate Willpower altogether so that players dont fall into the trap of using that trait, maybe tie them both to Cunning or Intelligence or Presence not sure which one really. Presence and Diplomats also take a small hit for the same reason, I know this would wreck both the characters I have played's usefulness since 1 was a Commander with good willpower specifically taken to help avoid fear checks and to help the real fighters go first. The Diplomat I went Heavy into the money making talents took 3 in Agi so I wouldnt be TRASH at shooting should it arise and then finally I had multiple points in Vigilance if everyone showed up the only thing my character was good at was rolling initiative for a our heavy hitters and being a massive annoying distraction to the empire so my team could slip in and out unnoticed other then that I was just kind of there I didnt have computer skills I couldnt shoot and my brawn was 1 so anything that looked at me funny made me drop taking away initiative would have made both the characters I played from Meh kinda useful to... why are you even here.
  3. I agree that the GM handled it poorly, there is no doubt here, but as soon as Reylan KNEW the GM was handling it poorly it was completely up to him how he could handle it. The way he did wasn't "wrong" but it technically did disrupt the game for both the GM and for him as well. The "my character wouldnt do that" clause usually comes from trying to fit a character into a setting that it normally doesnt fit in, in this case trying to fit his bounty hunter that only cares about the money into a group of people that do the right thing cus it is right and everything that comes with that clause fits this and Reylan even DID one of the methods that SHOULD have worked, he talked with his GM they came up with ideas on how to get his bounty hunter there and the GM did the crap thing and threw that dialog out the window. Reylan then tried hard again to give a conditional yes, to hand his GM a way for his character in on a silver platter and the GM didnt take it. Reylan was, unlike what that video talks about, doing A LOT to work WITH his GM rather then actively trying to work against him and the party. However, because he did put his character into this defined box there were still avenues he could have taken. He could have, as others have suggested, had his character become the primary villain of the series and then made a new character that better fit the party and the setting. He could have "just gone with it" he controls his character, or at least he SHOULD, so he can say whether or not his character is stirred by the rebellions boldness to approach him and a rousing speech all he technically had to do to make the game continue and not come to an abrupt halt is say ya my character was totally convinced by that and the group is now together and boom no problems. This is not to say he is the one to blame he shouldnt have HAD to just go with it, he gave the GM MORE then enough ways to get his character in with the rest of the group and the GM actively chose not to take ANY of those avenues, but we can't have a dialog with that GM, we can't tell him that it is just as much his responsibility to work with his players as it is the players responsibility to work with the GM, we can't tell him that taking control of a PC is never a good thing and how if he wants to do that go write a book there you control all of the characters Table top RPGs are Cooperative story telling. We can't help nor can we fix the GM, and that's why the topic question isnt about the GM it's about the player and what he could do. The answer to the question "could I have done something different' will always be yes, whether or not he could have done something better is questionable and the question as to whether or not he was being unreasonable and uncooperative is a resounding no.
  4. I think people are fine with having conversations, I do and I feel i have explained why I do like it. I have no problem with banning droids or any species from play because it doesnt fit a particular style or you have seen it get abused rather then used well. HOWEVER, your tone has A LOT of passive aggressiveness to it. For example the bolden portion of your statement can be seen as a very clear attack to everyone that likes the FFG RPG games, not even just the star wars game and multiple of your posts contain personal attacks like these, others have responded in kind and may even start up the aggressiveness so they are not innocent but neither are you. For an example when someone dared suggest that they had a different way and a droid character worked for them you did everything you could to tare down a character they loved playing with "a side kick, or worse then a side kick" and even tore down the PLAYER of that character whom the person you are debating with rather then just letting it go and admitting that it's possible that while you have had issues with droids a lot of people haven't while you have had issues with aliens a lot of people havent, and NONE of those people are any less experienced or less "hard core" about either Star Wars or RPG's. Right now I am fully willing to admit I am a happy miracle as a new GM with new players who has always looked for a game but never really found one in which we are all having fun with varying characters, we dont have a lot of aliens in the group simply because half the group has little knowledge on star wars but they like me from our DnD game and wanted to play an RPG and since I was running it I picked this one. They play humans cus they are playing what they know and enjoying every moment of it, my group would probably be on the "lesser" side of things by many GM standards when it comes to character development simply because we are all just happily bumbling around figuring it all out and yet when we look back at everything that has happened in game we start to really see how far the characters have come since we started, not just in XP but in goals, ideals, hopes and dreams Table Top RPGs are really amazing in that light.
  5. As most others have stated your GM should have handled it better, HOWEVER to the original question on whether or not YOU could have handled this differently the answer is simply Yes, "my character wouldnt do that" is a phrase that can simply halt adventures hard. You KNEW the GM was trying to get your character into the Alliance before the game started you KNEW the other players are already in the Alliance "just going with it" would have gotten the job done, sure it may have been "out of character" for what you think of your character as but people change and even if they are "all about the money" doesnt mean that for this one instance they can NOT be about the money, maybe past adventures help what the general says rings true or something. Yes your GM handled it poorly YES there was a MUCH better way of getting your character in however we cant affect your GM and neither can you, the only person any of can control is ourselves. A perfect video for this (noted most of this talks about characters meshing with the setting and what not and the GM as always it takes 2 to tango and conflict usually arises from people)
  6. Just saying R2 and 3PO were just as much main characters of Star Wars as Han or Leia. I mean how many times did R2 save the day, and in RotJ the cast would have been eaten without 3P0 and they had PLENTY of personality, or how about K2 SO in Rouge One, he was one of the main 3 characters from the movie, just saying Droids DO have personality in Star Wars, in most cases yes they are a "side kick" but both options that were explored here are viable Star Wars Droids as seen by the movies and the shows and again the book itself suggests to treat a droid character different from a droid Npc which from what has been stated thus far everyone does. Droid characters not only have their own personality, but even their own prejudices that NPCs have with them, it is really no different then playing an alien like a Mon Cal or a Bothan.
  7. Agreed, which is why he is only with those for a short time in clone wars and gets normal legs, the card in this case he has normal legs back. Honestly, they should never have brought him back to begin with they could have just made a new character.
  8. The spider legs thing was when Lucas still owned it.... so not disney selling toys... Lucas.
  9. I will say I have a droid character in my campaign, he is a Law enforcement droid that has taught itself how to not only stop crime but also heal the injured. He has become a combat medic he was built specifically to help the empire and has formed his own consciousness since is primary programming is to help people, working with the empire it slowly realized that his primary programming and the secondary programming didnt align thus it rebelled and joined the Alliance. Essentially the Age of Rebellion book AND the edge of empire book heavily suggests to treat droid players very different then most droids as they shouldnt be "side kicks" or even just pure programming but something has happened to make them stand out among droids, that has made them have real personality and sentience that most would think they would not have essentially any droid character SHOULD be more then the sum of their programming whether because their memories have not been wiped in forever or like we had it happen the droid slowly found conflicts within its own programming so decided to correct them thus creating a character with a lot more free will then the typical droid. Edit: the reason he chose droid was because he didnt want to just be human and he liked the idea that droids were "highly specialized" towards a single task, he thought it would be fun and interesting to play a character that wanted to help, but since his programming would not fulfill everything the droid would want to help WITH he would have a character that would need to work past its limitations and rely on the help and support of others whom he would protect. Edit 2: I will say I do make sure to ask my players before they make a droid if they are sure they want to make a droid, it comes with a lot of limitations like they can never become force sensitive and they will be very pigeon holed into a particular role that they choose, AND I make it clear that the model droid they pick matches their characteristics and likely their intended career. I don't mind an assassin droid looking like an R2 unit, but when that R2 unit has the brawn of a wookie I start to question it hard as that starts to look like power gaming which I think is what Arch is worried about, but honestly I havent had much issue with that, but my players are fairly new to the game so they can only 'power game" so much and because of that they are more focused on having a fun character that works well with the team rather then an "OP" one.
  10. Aayla is Hero, Holocron is villain...
  11. The BIG thing to note about yoda.... NO BLANKS...
  12. My guess on his die is likely 1 focus, 2 focus, disrupt, resource and special..... or how AWESOME would it be if he had 2 special sides, or even better... 2 focus, 2 focus, 1 disrupt.....
  13. I think we will see on that regard. Infinite will definitely still be popular BUT we still have 2 more Booster Expansions to go before Standard even really kicks in, Infinite may start to become less popular when we are half way through the 3rd Cycle.
  14. Just realized a fun little fact..... We have ALREADY seen reprints. The 2 player set has Logistics, strategic Planning, Defensive stance, Evade, Flank, Parry, Doubt, Intimidate, Tactical Mastery that were reprinted from Awakenings so we can 100% guarantee that some cards will be reprinted as it has already happened since the 2 player set is officially part of the Legacies set we can guarantee already that those cards from awakenings will still be legal after Awakenings rotates out.
  15. I have not read the whole thing (only the first couple pages) but i will say there are multiple ways you can handle this. If you NEED your players to get in that door and they fail the check with advantage they FAIL to pick the lock, but thankfully someone inside the door opens the door because they heard a commotion outside. If they Fail with Disadvantage they FAIL to open the door they get spotted and a shoot out happens, again someone inside is wondering what the commotion is... they open the door. Failure with Triumph some one opens the door because they were on their way out and maybe they are the only one, or maybe a prisoner got loose and went through the vents and opened the door trying to get out so now they have a new ally that shows up.... All of this is assuming they fail to pick the lock. If you don't like that there is always other options especially with those books, sure it says they need to get in that door, maybe they fail to pick the lock, but I am sure there are NPC's around they can deceive or beat up that can conveniently have a Key Card that opens the door, or there are vents that one of the smaller characters with good coordination can sneak through, so on and so forth. If they absolutely MUST get into that room or the plot halts completely a failure simply means they failed to pick the lock, that doesnt mean the door HAS to stay shut and it definitely doesnt mean that is the only way to get the door to open, heck they fail to open it so they decide to knock on the door and go "hey man let me in I forgot my key card" and roll deception, guy opens the door....