kkuja

Members
  • Content count

    236
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About kkuja

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Location
    Finland, Jyväskylä

Recent Profile Visitors

282 profile views
  1. I have found this is true for all RPG modules. Players in our regular group can derail anything ever, unless GM really forces them to rails, and that's no fun. Our best campaigns have been sandboxing. I just GM'ed Beyond the Rim (actually we are at last act, not yet finished), and I probably scrapped about 50 % of it. Usually I take the setting and NPCs from module, and rest is extreme fluid. I may take few plot points, or overall arch of the plot, but skip the details. In few of my own adventures PCs have bypassed practically everything with one idea and good roll. But to our current campaign I have took some ideas from almost every FFG module I own.
  2. About despair result. Do you use plain critical, or minor / major collision? (Only difference being that plain critical is "deadlier", because shields help in collisions. Difference is not huge. Personally I always use collisions (minor/major depends on situation), because event critical -20 can ruin the PC's day. And often has.
  3. I'm just reading the The Empire Strikes Back: So You Want to Be a Jedi? book. In it, the writer writes about why always in stories the main character is always (well, usually) the least colourful character. Luke is less interesting than Han or Leia in star wars. We know more about Samwais than Frodo. Harry Potter has less personal traits than Hermione or Ron. The reason is exactly what you said. More clearly the main character is defined, fewer people can relate to him. And this is not new phenomenon. Cincerella is fairly flat character, as are most heroes and heroines in fairy tales. May this have affected us as players? It's not long ago when hero of a movie was practically always (99% of time) a white male. That is often true still, but IMO there has been more exceptions in this century. Someone who has studied writing could probably speak more in-depth about this whole phenomenon.
  4. There are not too many options. Vader, Leia, Tarkin, Mon Mothma, Bail Organa (IMO, these last two could be seen as iconic), R2D2, 3-CPO, Saw Gerrera, Death Star, Tantive IV. These are what come to mind. Vader would be a small surprise for me. But just small. There is a 99% change I will buy this book anyway. FFG hasn't disappointed me too much yet. I just think DS stat block was a step to wrong direction. (I don't think this is general truth, but my personal opinion.)
  5. This. I wish FFG would have its own quality control unit which would make sure nothing conflicts with earlier publishing. But maybe that's just my OCD / autism talking. Thankfully books have been fairly balanced up to this point, and conflicting information has been fairly rare.
  6. I was waiting the Dawn of Rebellion book with my mouth watered. Now, after that preview article, I feel disgusted. Stats for plot device? Foul mouthed language and abrupted opinions: Clean version (in case the spoiler tags work): DS silhouette was given as 10 in EotE Core book (page 224), why was it changed here? Why is FFG retconning things to worse? FFG: Please, get your set together, we love your product (8 - 10% market share should tell you something), but sometimes we feel that you are neglecting us. Also, remember that from marketing point of view, it's 7 times cheaper to sell to existing customer than to new customer. Now, let's see if spoiler tags work.
  7. Aliens don't tend to differ much from humans in our game. That's mostly because playing alien requires additional work from player. In our group we only have two aliens (Sakiyan bounty hunter, and Neimoidian force user), other are human. IMO, having player play aliens like humans is not inherently wrong. It's wrong if it annoys someone. Personally as GM, I try remind player about aliens thru NPCs. I try to hilight alien aspects of alien NPCs. Unfortunately I have managed to do this for only small amount of NPCs. Sometimes the two alien PCs encounter speciecism, because they are not humans. IMO problem with aliens is that players (including me) don't really have a good idea how they should be played correctly. What actually separates them from humans. Inherently they are all sapient species, so what should really change? I don't think there are clear and correct answers. More stereotypical the alien species is, easier it is to play it correctly. Do you know how different aliens should be played? Can you put it into words? If not, (I cannot) then no wonder your (and my) player default to very human like behavior. On side note, what's the average age of players in your group? I have noticed that growing older has given more depth to roleplaying aspect regarding aliens (or otherwise other species) in our group. Personally I play an elf in our Pathfinder game, and I have to admit with shame, my elf could be substituted with human whenever, and result would be viable, but weird, human. If this post has one point, it is that don't be too hard to yourself and players. Playing aliens correctly is very hard. Have fun! And if you feel that restricting species selection might work, try it. I have done it other games, and it has been more or less successful. P.S. One option for our next campaign is all gungan mercenary group.
  8. I agree with Edgookin's reply for this. We must also remember the game design point of view. DEVs (AFAIK) want to keep the system light and fast. Its ability to simulate real world is secondary. System that tries to be realistic, need absolute ranges. Cinematic and narrative over realistic. And again, nothing blocks you from making house rules. Only you know what works for your group.
  9. "requires knowing where things are precisely" Could you give an example? I'm asking because I cannot think anything which would require me knowing positioning absolutely, but I know those situations are real. When I started GMing our game was full of those situations, but nowadays there are none. And, thank you for your kind words. I think I have done something correctly. By the way, your comment saved my day, which started poorly (I noticed I forgot my ID and keys home, when I needed to enter my office, so back to home to retrieve them.).
  10. One thing is also, that the combat system is fairly abstract. As the "maneuver to move to open, attack, maneuver to move to cover" shows. I.E. taking cover maneuver will cover that whole shenanigans. Personally I tend to keep it so that all action actually happens simultaneously (but is resolved normally), so it's easier to explain why maneuver - action - maneuver doesn't give invulnerability. Effect of actions is more important, than the actions itself. Generally I tend to fudge rules and roll and stats, to enhance the dramatic tension. Last time I did this, was with star ship chase, when player obviously were bored, because it just went on and on. I broke opponents engines with two threats. P.S. I have used 67 sessions to prepare campaign nemesis to give PCs a proper opposition, when they finally encounter her (inquisitor). She won't have just normal inquisitor stats. Also, she won't drop on first round, because she will fight smart. Though, If I know the players, there is 50% change they will win her with some weird plot. And if PCs will attack her straight, with light sticks of death, she will have many minions to block PC attacks (if drama requires it), using squad leader rules in AoR GM kit (?).
  11. After first few sessions I waved goodbye for my desire of realism, and embraced range bands. I made a clear decision to keep them abstract, and not to think too much how many meters they are. Sometimes our engaged is within touching distance, sometimes it is within 5 meters. I have purposefully coached players away from tactical thinking, and encouraged them to cinematic (and often stupid) actions. Player started to embrace this after I stopped punishing them about tactical blunders. If they are really stupid, I won't save them, but they are the heroes of their story, and my job as GM is to make that story as enjoyable as possible. In this vein, I have also mostly stopped using maps, except in abstract sense. Or when I want to give players sense of surroundings, when I'm not planning any combat etc action. More than maps, I use images, since I have found them to be better at creating the atmosphere I want.
  12. Bloodline is only book from Gray, I have read, and it's also one of my favourite SW books. I probably should read rest of her books. I had same problem with the Perfect Weapon, by Delilah Dawson. Protagonist of that book is Bazine Netal, and IMO Dawson tries too much to make Netal the toughest tough person. And the tool to make this happen is to group her with bumbling idiot savant. Redeeming quality of that book is slight hint of character growth in Netal, during events of book. But probably I'm not in the target group of that book anyway. My favourite (canonical) SW books at the moment are Dark Disciple (I liked the story), Ahsoka (I'm Ahsoka Fan), Thrawn (Thrawn is Star Wars equivalent of Sherlock Holmes, and I love SH), and A New Dawn (I'm adapting it to campaign, as it seems fairly easy task). My least favourites are the Aftermath trilogy (I hated most of the main cast, and their illogical actions). But these are just my personal feelings towards those books.
  13. Without telling how it should be done, I'll tell how I'd handle conflict in this kind of situation. My general guidelines: When PC escalates the conflict to violence and kills opponent, that is conflict worthy, regardless who the opponent is. When NPC escalates the conflict to violence and PC kills him, it may be conflict worth, but not much (unless PC is especially cruel). Though often it isn't worth conflict. When PC indirectly causes someone to die, it is conflict worthy (this is always situational). Not much, but some (I'd consult with PC about the amount), depending on situation. (rationale: for me, conflict also represents the conflict character experiences. If I'd accidentally caused a death, it would cause huge pain for me.) In this situation, as PCs missed the bombing before hand, but probably guess the bombers, I might give PCs few conflict if they don't try to bring bombers to justice. (Personally I love those situations when PCs have conflicting interests, and they have to choose which bad option they take. I have seen some best roleplaying rising from those situations.) Conflict is not automatically bad thing for PCs, so I try not to hold back when giving it. This is partially affected by our unique situation, as we play online, and have short sessions (usually 1-2 hours).
  14. At least for android, there are also free non official dice apps, which support SW dice. Though, none of them are close to FFG dice app at usability, but they work. But FFG dice app is totally worth the price. Even if one has enough dice. And to OP. Do you want to play this game? If you want to play, I'd say yes. If you don't then it will be fairly useless. Price seems ok.
  15. At weekend, I played a small indie game named Lasers and Feelings (game world we used was basically TNG Star Trek). How GM played it, was kind of eye opening. Every roll we made, moved story forward, regardless of it being success or failure. On failure, story moved to direction positive to PCs, and failure moved story to some other direction (and usually ignited our ship to fire). That style doesn't work directly as-is with SW, but at least in some situations it might work. I think it was quite close to failing forward style. I think I try to use "Failing Upwards: the JarJar Binks Story" method when planning future scenarios to our group.