• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About kkuja

  • Rank
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Location
    Finland, Jyväskylä

Recent Profile Visitors

374 profile views
  1. I also just saw the movie. Personally I really liked it. There were some nice nods to earlier movies. The movie also took some bold risks, and I liked it. Last third of movie was IMO bit too action packed, and some humour was a bit out of the place, and easy to forget (I remember there were many jokes, but have already forgotten most of those). There were also some actions which almost broke the fourth wall, and that may annoy some viewers. There were also at least one character I hated at the beginning, but loved at the end. Only Spoiler I will give, is that there is a dedication to "our princess" in end credits. In my books this movie is definitely better than The Force Awakens. Personally I put it in same level than OT.
  2. How simulationistic you want it to be? When I GMed the BtR, I allowed PCs to escape with bandit on single piloting check (which I didn't make too hard, and all other PCs helped the pilot), because we already wanted to move on, and combat generally is the most boring part of game for us. The adventure between the book covers is nothing sacred to me. If you want to handle the escape in more detailed way, you can e.g. Nerf the opposition (weaker weapons for ships in pursuit, etc.), or be more lenient with player ideas.
  3. Ranked casting level talent? (I haven't yet got my genesys, so I'm practically commenting blindly, and don't know if this is possible in genesys.)
  4. True. I should have said something like: "Handle your groups internal problems internally, and ask help if you need it. Blaming others here bring nothing good to anything."
  5. It's not actual research, it's personal perception of matter based on discussions with players (and game designers) who have played with players from other continent. "What about sandbox campaign? It's not campaign if it's sandbox." said one american podcaster. His point of view was that campaign has GM build story structure, and if it doesn't have it, it's not a real campaign. That is kind of opinionated point of view which I don't believe to describe how all american's view the matter. And I'm not saying either way of viewing the matter better, they are just different. There has also been discussion about cultural differences between american style and european style in finnish roleplaying forums, which have also affected my opinion. One finnish researcher has actually made an actual research about roleplaying culture. I'll check if I can found his or her name and research.
  6. I fully agree. Regardless of the style of the game. This sounds very much like a sandbox to me. And is very near to my own style. And IMO game with just random encounters is a hyberbole, and a bad game, not sandbox game. Story can be provided in many ways. When done bad way, it's railroading, when done in good way, it's a good game. BTW. I have noticed a difference between American RPG culture, and European RPG culture, regarding sandbox games (partially semantic difference). It seems that for americans' sandbox game means a game without any direction, and for europeans' it means a game where the direction comes from player/PC motivations, instead of GM.
  7. Please people, handle your gaming groups problems in your groups. And please, be polite in here. These forums have changed more toxic in previous year. (Dark side of growth I presume.) Disclaimer: I use railroading as derogatory name for bad story driven game, where player agency has been taken away, and GM should have written a novel instead of rpg campaign. For me sandbox is a game where players actually have a choice what to do in addition to how to do it, and PC motivations are important. Bad sandbox doesn't give PCs anything to hold on, and players feel like being lost (sitting in the sand example). Bad story driven game (railroading) takes away the player agency and choice (think DM of the Rings). Both are bad. In good game players have freedom, choices what they can do, and clear direction what they (players) want to do. There may, or not, be underlying story behind the screen. Anyway, players need to have a something to do. Important part is that players (including GM), are having a good time. And every group is different, and enjoy different games. Freedom and story driven gaming are not polar opposites, unless GM makes it so. My personal style is that at the beginning of the campaign I tend to have few sessions more planned, to get the game running. After PCs are up to speed, they are free to do whatever they like, and I focus more on places and NPCs (personalities, motivations, etc). I sometimes offer them "quests" which they may or may not do. It's up to them what they do. As a GM I feel that my job is to make sure players have multiple options what to do, if they don't have own agendas to advance. In our previous campaign, PCs escaped the DS 1 as they defected. Their way of escaping was fully their invention, and after they were safe, they were free to invent their own activities, and they had fiveish leads to scenarios which they could have done. They did something completely different, and their story started to unfold. And later when they didn't have anything important to do, they went for one of the original leads. After 81 sessions, we put the campaign on hold, as it was time to try something different. These are just my opinions, feel free to agree or disagree. And have a good day (and enjoy Last Jedi when you see it. Tomorrow for me. Whee! ) .
  8. Current copyright state of cthulhu mythos is a bit murky AFAIK. All (?) stuff that came directly from Lovecraft is public domain, but some later author stuff is still copyrighted. But even this is a bit unclear. Derleth estate has claimed they own all Lovecrafts work, but it is unclear how correct that is (1). And Chaosium has AFAIK created moderate amount of known mythos, which definitely is copyrighted. As FFG has AHLCG, they probably know what can be used, and probably have a good reason not to include Cthulhu mythos as example. Maybe they don't want to step on Chaosium's area, as Call of Cthulhu is RPG, so AHLCG is not direct competitor for, but RPG would be. Maybe FFG thinks Genesys system wouldn't be good for Lovecraftian horror. Maybe they think Mythos is too esoteric to be interesting for wider audience. I guess we won't know it soon. Personally I'd don't care very much genesys lovecraftian setting. For me, Cthulhu Dark is the ultimate lovecraftian RPG. But that's just me. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._P._Lovecraft#Copyright
  9. I'd say it depends on what you want to be focus of your campaign. If it is heavily survival related, then yes, own skill to every environment, at normal game, where focus is at somewhere else, it's not worth it in my opinion. Rather than separate skills, I'd make it so that player needs to choose a focus for survival, and maybe gain boost to it, and setback for other terrain/climate types. Maybe custom talents to buy new focuses? Disclaimer: I haven't yet gotten my Genesys so I cannot comment anything unique to it, but I have quite much experience GMing FFG SW (nearly 100 sessions). And before FFG SW game, I GMed a game where there were separate skill for almost everything imaginable. Currently I value universal skills, and IMO FFG SW has fairly good skill coverage.
  10. I disagree. If they like money, PDFs would be better source for it, as they have smaller production expenses (no printing, no freight, no storage). Piracy wouldn't be much larger issue as it now, because most SW books can be found online as scanned versions, so it wouldn't be that much easier. Personally I would buy both physical copy, and PDF, if PDFs are sold. Partially because I live in periferia, and freight to here takes a lot of time. And partially because I play a lot online (roll20), and PDFs are fairly practical in those kind of games.
  11. PCs in our group easily drop a storm trooper squad of three in one attack. In interviews the DEVs have highlighted the GM responsibility. IMO, This game is not a D&D/PF where rules should cover every use case, but GM must make rulings on the fly. Leia kiling the Jabba was not Leia getting Jabba over its wound threshold, but more probably a narrative element of a story. Anyway, I always find it annoying when people complain about game not replicating the exact mechanics of a movie (or movie not replicating a comic on screen to screen basis). It's like complaining my cake doesn't taste like car tire. Those are totally different things to begin with. Game is a game, and movie is a movie. Game made from movie should replicate the style and atmosphere of a movie, not actual events. Now, I'm not saying that you, Yaccarus, are complaining. You are absolutely correct that comparing EotE results to canon results doesn't make sense. Especially when those events can be made exactly the same. PC and GM just changed Leia vs Jabba combat to be resolved with a single dice roll, instead of long and arduous dice rolling marathon where there are only losers. And the PC roll very very well. It's ok to change rules like that when it enhances the game. DEVs themselves focus more on narrative than on rules when they play.
  12. Let the PC fight the Hutt head on, if they choose so. And remember that when you beaten over you Wound Threshold, you are not dead, just incapasitated. In good case the PCs lose to the Hutt, and after getting beaten up the PCs wake up from the cell, and their next task is a prison break. On bad case the PCs kill the Hutt, and now they are in deep problems. As Degenerate Mind and other wrote, killing a Hutt is a bad idea. I would give enough obligation from that. I would actually turn that to a core idea of main campaign. Listen to your players. Say yes to them. I know that in our group PCs would come up with some hair-brained idea with almost nothing to do with what they'd want to do, and they'd make that work if I'd allow that. And by allowing I mean giving realistic difficulties on multiple checks. Our players enjoy mostly the problem solving aspect of game. They really don't like the combats. Find what your players enjoy and bring more of that to game.
  13. If the GM wants to kill PCs it is always possible and easy, no one is denying that (If nothing else, rock falls). In text you quoted there was one meaningful word which I think you might have skipped, and it changed the meaning of whole discussion. If NPC ACCIDENTALLY makes a coup de grace to PC, then I'm astonished. I think that in OPs situation problem wasn't he intentionally killed a PC group, at core IMO the problem was that GM got PCs into situation where few PCs died, and that caused animosity at least for one player. Also, problem is that according to RAW those PCs didn't need to die. No crit 141+ was rolled (only rule covered way the PC is killed in RAW), but decisions were made by GM and PCs. Later one player changed his/her mind, and didn't want the PC to die. So, THIS IS NOT RULES PROBLEM (and has nothing to do how easy or hard it is to kill a PC), but group dynamic and social contract problem. You are absolutely correct about it depending on the situation. BTW, totally of topic. I hate it when in movies an animal is eating, and then humans interrupt it and it starts to chase humans. Animals don't work that way. Animals don't change larger and unmoving food source to moving and smaller food source. If you want to say something, say it, don't beat the bush. So, you are saying, I'm wrong, because DEVs have said something, in somewhere (could you please point me to the source)? DEVs have also said it is hard to kill a PC in this game. (E.g. Order 66 podcast, I don't remember the episode number by heart, but I can dig it up). So, which one is right, devs or devs? Maybe both, because the whole matter is kind of moot. If GM wants to kill PCs he can always to it (I'm speaking only about doing this on purpose), with RAW (stack bonuses, out rules lawyer PCs, throw too powerful or too many enemies against PCs,) or with GM ruling (rock falls everyone dies, AT-AT steps to PC, PC is bleeding and runs out of blood). Please take those examples as hyperboles they are, on the part they are hyperboles. Someone reading this might think that you want to kill PCs, and I'll do anything to protect them. AFAIK, Neither is truth. And good GMing is somewhere between those two extremities. GM offering challenges to players, and not killing PCs just for fun or by bad luck.
  14. That is interesting, and kind of bonus for the books. It was while ago when I watched that episode, but my recollection is that it wasn't as bad I feared. But as said, my knowledge about Mandalorians is very limited, and my opinion is based more on my personal prejudices than how Mandalorians are actually depicted. Thank you.
  15. In this game, it's really nearly impossible to kill a character accidentally. Getting the crit 141+ requires either many previous crits, or real killer weapons. Or beating the unconscious PC, which should IMO never happen. When NPC damages PC over their WT, and PC falls, NPC should move to next PC, and instead of TPK, the end result is whole group beaten and captured. After that, it's up to GM what happens. I'd most probably imprison PCs, with a small amount of time to escape, as they all have huge bounties from Empire. This of course is situation dependent. But this is a bit off topic already.