Jump to content

Jace911

Members
  • Content Count

    168
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Point of order regarding the TIEs/f, but if you look at a picture it's pretty apparent that "360 degree turret" actually means "can shoot forwards and backwards", because if you tried to fire that thing either port or starboard you would blow your own wings off. Something to potentially keep in mind. In my current campaign set post TFA I'm taking stats of OT Imperial vehicles and giving them a slight boost whenever I need a FO equivalent, because I want them to feel like more advanced designs. So all the TIEs have a shield point, not just the special forces variant. For the new Star Destroyers I would treat them more like a hazard than an enemy with hit points the players could theoretically defeat.
  2. "It's completely implausible for the make-believe laser pew-pew gun to trigger a grenade being telekinetically suspended in the air by a space witch wielding a laser sword," argued no GM I want to play with ever.
  3. No, stupid, she's obviously I mean they literally spell it out for you at the end of the film!
  4. You're reading too much into things that can be explained most directly and simply -- Occam's Razor -- by JJ Abrams being an average filmmaker and storyteller at best, and/or by the way that hitting a list of "Star Wars bullet points" was the #1 priority in the writing and filming TFA. That's not how Occam's Razor works, but I'm not surprised you lack an understanding of even that basic concept given your contempt for conventional literary theory. :V Oh, and in your haste to jump on the "hate%$ JJ Abrams" bandwagon you've forgotten that he co-wrote TFA with Lawrence Kasdan, the man who wrote Empire Strikes Back. I guess that was a mediocre film as well? Edit: apparently the forum doesn't automatically censor "hate%$", good to know.
  5. Now it just sounds like you're trying to be contentious for the sake of being contentious Personally I think this George Lucas chap is an overrated hack who needs to stop stealing ideas from Kurosawa and Nowlan. Doesn't he know true art springs forth pure from the creator's mind, untainted by silly things like "inspiration" and "acquired taste"?
  6. My body is so ready for Chris Pratt in a Magnificent Seven remake.
  7. Nobody said it wasn't speculation. It's just weird to see people argue against the evidence that makes the speculation more legitimate, all because they'd just not rather see the story written that way. Or rather, they don't see "evidence" in random unrelated crap and take every second of what's shown on screen as another clue to a deeper mystery that doesn't actually exist. Or they are engaging in wishful thinking. After all, if all the "evidence" is "random unrelated crap", then every Star Wars movie has just become garbage, because all of it is random unrelated crap by that standard. The only wishful thinking is seeing "evidence" for every stupid pet theory imaginable flitting about the shadows and still-frames of a movie. Especially when it comes to something as overdone and trite as fans making up crap about the parentage of characters -- as if every story ever made was another example of some teenager's bad fan-fiction. "My original character is the lost child of Hermoine and Draco from an alternate dimension!" I'm beginning to wonder if there's anything at all about art that MaxKilljoy doesn't consider overdone and trite. "Human existence is stale and overplayed, show me something new!"
  8. Are you sure you'll last that long? We both know you can't resist me, senpai.
  9. The alternative is a combination of random plot details that go nowhere and outright deus ex machinae, which I somehow doubt you would prefer. Like, at some point you just have to recognize that maybe it isn't the writers' fault that you watch too much $#%@ing tv. :V Or they could stop hitting the same tired tropes and move beyond "paint by numbers" writing... Who is "they"? What tired tropes? What "paint by numbers" writing? You have this bad habit of speaking about nebulous boogeymen and their offenses rather than providing concrete positions that can actually be debated. It makes one wonder if you're actually interested in a discussion, or if you'd prefer to whinge and stroke your ego over how you're so much smarter than "them". Man, you must hate literary analysis and criticism. :V
  10. When in doubt, I go with techno-worshippers of pretty much any stripe. There's a lot of potential for both comedy and serious commentary depending on how you present it.
  11. The alternative is a combination of random plot details that go nowhere and outright deus ex machinae, which I somehow doubt you would prefer. Like, at some point you just have to recognize that maybe it isn't the writers' fault that you watch too much $#%@ing tv. :V
  12. While I agree that canon characters are best left to their respective works, I don't really think the PC Gamer article serves as an effective counterpoint to Young's article, because they're not really talking about the same thing. Brian Young wasn't suggesting the GM have canon characters show up for fanservice coolness factor, he was using Ahsoka as an example of a Gandalf/Obi-Wan mentor figure who can guide the party or teach them. and on and on I mean, it's right there in the title: "The Spirit of Ahsoka Tano". As in the essence of a character like Ahsoka, not literally Ahsoka herself. (As an aside, whenever I'm tempted to cameo a canon character in my campaign, I remind myself that it's an opportunity to make another memorable NPC with way too much backstory instead. "I could have the briefing given by Mon Mothma...or a Chadra-Fan commander who needs a stuffy protocol droid to translate his adorable squeaking". Or "I could have the Rebel fighter squadron led by Luke Skywalker...or an aging Clone pilot who deserted the Empire and sees it as his duty to restore the Republic he was created to serve". Etc etc)
  13. He later clarified and said that Rey didn't discover her parents in Episode VII, which we already knew. Plus this is the guy who insisted Benedict Cucumber totes wasn't playin Khan in nST2, no really guys I swear!!!
  14. I have a very different experience. Sure having a structured story is fine but I do allow for sandbox gaming as well. I keep all options upen but there is always a larger narrative infused within the games we play. Also I really don't understand how it could be because of to the system (this or any other) that a certain playstyle breaks down. Can you explain what you mean there? My takeaway is that it's harder to plan a specific, structured plot, due to the wide-ranging nature of starship crews and their many means of conflict resolution. It's much harder to limit players' options and so control the potential outcomes. The dice are a big part of that: you might assign a ridiculously high difficulty to a Charm check to dissuade a crew of marauders from doing you harm, but if your player pulls off a success with five Advantage and two Triumphs, it's hard to say, "No, it doesn't work." As for the structured part, I've run into that before. One of my games is currently in what I consider the third act (of a four act structure) of the current metaplot, when I feel like the group should be focused on the overarching threat rather than their own Obligations. However, since everyone still has so much of their own stories left to deal with -- find a Force mentor, liberate their droid "siblings," save their slicer guild from the Black Sun -- they've been deliberately advancing the metaplot in such a way that they can realistically take a few days between major actions to take care of personal business. It definitely helps that I'm perfectly okay with that, since I specifically said in Session Zero that I would make time for everyone's personal arc. But if I were the type of GM who wanted to stress the A-plot that actively involves everyone rather than the B-plots that push one person into the spotlight, I imagine it would get tiring pretty fast. The urge to interrupt their stuff with my story would be strong, which would then put me in opposition to my players. I actually ran into that with a Halo RPG that my friends and I designed and played, and I decided to end the campaign when their characters' personal stories finally made them break away completely from the main story I was trying to tell. (Fortunately, they were okay with that.) So yeah, as fun as this system is and as much as it matches my personal style, it's not necessarily for everyone. The "planning" you're talking about is a bad GM habit anyway, in my opinion. In my mind the best GM knows the cardinal direction he wants the game to move in and steers the players that way while giving them the illusion that they are blazing their own trail, rather than pulling them along by the wrist. Improvisation is where GMs really have a chance to shine anyway.
×
×
  • Create New...