Jump to content

Tramp Graphics

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    7,646

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Tramp Graphics

  1. Posted

    8 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

    He is not correct, it is an errant comma. Based on the opinion of a professional editor who deals with these sorts of problems on a regular basis, the comma is errant and was likely included because the sentence seemed too long. As someone who overuses commas, I think this makes sense. It is the sort of mistake I would have made.

    Your rephrasing changes the meaning of the sentence in such a way that it (mostly) validates the conclusion. However, it changes the meaning. "Before X, do Y and Z" is how the description is phrased.

    No, before you do X, you do Y, then you add Z to the result of X. You cannot add Z to the result of X until you do X. Therefore, Y comes before X, but Z comes after X. 

    6 hours ago, Fistofpaper said:

    Wrong.

     

    For it to read the way that Tramp interprets it would need to be "; Add", not ", and add". The first is an example of two conjoined statements, the second is an errant comma.

    It is two conjoined statements. It isn’t an errant comma. No matter how you read it, the Successes and advantages are added to the result of the roll, not to the dice pool. Ergo, you roll the dice before adding any Success or Advantage. 

  2. Posted · Edited by Tramp Graphics

    3 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

    @RuusMarev, @Tramp Graphics, @Von3679, @Bellona, since we are at the beginning of a session, I'm going to call this game here for now until we can migrate to Discord. I should have the server set up either today or tomorrow.

    Before you do that, you might want to look at other options as well. From what’s been said in another thread in these forums, the Discord servers are more chat room, and is so fast moving that posts get lost, if not deleted after a time. Given my post rate, I could easily be left behind. If we can find a dedicated message board, that would be the better option. 

  4. Posted

    1 hour ago, DanteRotterdam said:

    That is if you don’t consider the guy who was given the commandments a prophet of course. 

    Not what I’m talking about. If you read Exodus, God didn’t impart his instructions to the Israelites through visions given to a prophet. He appeared directly to them in physical form: the form of the burning bush, a column of fire and smoke and spoke out directly to them. On the mountain, he literally wrote the Ten Commandments with his own hand on the two stone tablets. It isn’t until later that the Israelites asked that God use prophets to act as intermediaries out of fear. So, was Moses a prophet? Yes, but his role was much different than the later ones in that God appeared physically to him, not just in visions, and also appeared to the rest of Israel. 

  5. Posted

    22 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

    Ah, but the original Hebrew may have been flawed and the later (English) version was corrected through divine inspiration. Hey, if you can buy that divine inspiration gave the original, then why not the revision?

    If you’re a person of faith (and I don’t know one way or another here), the Ten Commandments were quite literally written by the very hand of God directly. They weren’t given through a prophet. So, no, there is no error in the original source. It’s an error in the later translations. 

  6. Posted · Edited by Tramp Graphics

    On 12/17/2020 at 9:53 PM, HappyDaze said:

    That depends on what version is being studied. And the fact that there are multiple interpretations (and people are so quick to jump to the one they don't ascribe to as being WRONG!) goes the whole point I was making about religions being incredibly strict...until it's better for them not to be.

     

    On 12/17/2020 at 10:17 PM, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

    Which translation, and a translation can be inaccurate.

     

    On 12/18/2020 at 11:07 AM, HappyDaze said:

    I'm speaking on the authority that perhaps the original writer may have improperly interpreted the source of the message, and perhaps the later translator may have spoken with the same source and applied errata. As for whether a particular version makes sense, it's religion--not everything in religious texts has been made with the intent to be logical or to avoid causing lots of problems--and that may be according to the intentions of the source.

    The original Hebrew text says “Thou shalt not murder”. Remember, the Ten Commandments are, first and foremost, Hebrew law. And it should be noted that the commentator here is himself Jewish, and well studied in his faith. He was also taught the Talmud in its original Hebrew, as is traditional. Thus, any direct Translations of the Talmud for Jewish readers is straight from Hebrew to English. The Christian Bible, including the Old Testament, went from Hebrew to Greek to Latin, to English. This is also how we went from Yeshua to Jesus. Killing and murder are different. This video specifically discussed this at length: 

    So, yes, the correct term is “Thou shalt not murder”, not “Thou shalt not kill”.

    BrickSteelhead reacted to this

  8. Posted

    17 hours ago, DanteRotterdam said:

    She has said some pretty despicable things though... or, at the very least some, very, very dumb and willfully ignorant things, and I can imagine that for a large subset of people she might not be the draw they hopes she could have been. 
    For the record, I love Cara Dune. 

    That depends upon which end of the political spectrum you sit on though. 

  12. Posted

    16 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

    Here's one way to split it up: who is a registered bounty hunter vs. a "deputy"?

    The way I'm treating it (for ease of PC introduction mostly), licensed bounty hunters can extend that licensing to unlicensed individuals, but are liable for those persons' actions.

    I'd say Darien, Cade, Kara, and Wu are licensed. Maybe Falmok, that'd be up to @RuusMarev. He's in a more gray area backstory-wise where he could have been licensed as well, or indefinitely deputized by Darien, who started bounty hunting before Falmok was old enough. When Falmok was old enough, he joined Darien.

    That leaves Jen and Ge'tal (maybe Falmok) as unlicensed.

    Yeah, Ge’tal isn’t even a bounty hunter. She’s a merc, a soldier. 

  13. Posted

    2 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

    @Tramp Graphics

    2 is average for who?

    a typical human noncombatant minion npc has 2 for an attribute if you're trying to use that as a baseline....well you're not going to shine quite as brightly when compared to generalist starting character PCs, or when your tango with a nemesis pirate chief who is in the story as filler/a bridge to the important stuff.

    3 yellow or 4 green, is the jack of all trades in an area they mostly ignore level of proficiency for experienced PCs... or a slightly specialized starting character.

    You're welcome for this years December birthday and Christmas gifts (rise of the separatists and collapse of the republic), not sure if your latest reworking was before our after you got them on Oct 29 this year.  So to everyone out there.... we're good friends In real life and arguing like an old married couple is just our thing... don't mistake it for a flame war or ill intent towards each other.

    But "converting' characters between dissimilar systems is an oxymoron, if you don't rebuild with respect to the new system, then whatever adaptive design optimization achieved through organic growth in the source system is lost before you get to the new system.

    You're good at seeing minute difference but have trouble seeing large scale similarities.  The "best" you can hope for when transitioning between dissimilar systems is to keep the major theme of the character.

    I agree that you could convert from d6 to genesys, you can't convert between d6 and ffg star wars.  D6 is a la carte, genesys is a la carte, ffg star wars is not a la carte.  That's the fundamental reason why if you try to covert from d6 into ffg star wars, the resulting ffg character won't be comparable to characters homegrown in the ffg star wars system.

    Your dice conversion formula don't work either... expecting there to to be a clean linear conversion formula is a fool's errand.

    No, it isn’t. The highest number of dice seen in any skill, without any Attributes added is fifteen dice. That’s Emperor Palpatine’s most powerful Force skill in the Movie Trilogy Sourcebook, which was Sense at 15D. The only time I’ve seen it higher was in the Dark Empire SB, which put that skill at 17D, which is beyond the normal scope of F&D. However, that technically does work since dice pools can go up to 6 ranks of at least Green dice. Either way, one rank in F&D equals three dice in D6 for skills, and one F&D rank equals one die in D6 for attributes. It is a direct linear conversion. It’s far more linear than going from D6 to D20 RCRB, and much easier to do. D6 has more in common with the FFG narrative dice system than it ever did with D20. The only real difference is that F&D is not “a laCarte when it comes to talents, which didn’t exist in D6, but were introduced in D20. 

    So all of the actual skill dice do convert and are comparable to F&D skill ranks. Attribute dice also convert linearly as well, and are comparable, with only two attributes in each system which have no counterpart in the other. It’s only the talents which are problematic, and that only results in excess XP to fill in the gaps to get to the necessary talents.
     
    So, yes, it is possible to do, it’s just not easy to do, and does require some trial and error. As seen here: 

     

    As for when I did the update, it was before I got the books. I did it using the talent trees posted on these forums. I just need to update his SWSheets page. 

    As for only keeping the “major theme” of the character, if the skills and abilities don’t line up it’s not the same character. For that, you need to match the details as closely as possible within the limits of the system. The details matter just as much as the “major theme”. Details matter. They cannot be overlooked. Otherwise it’s not the same character. It’s name-slapping and window dressing. 
     Regardless, how he was converted is irrelevant. The point is that not even his original D6 version was “optimized” by your standards, nor by what Ginny Di called “optimized”, as seen below: 

    Korath Lorren D6 Stats:

    Type: Jedi Knight

    DEXTERITY 3D+2

    Blaster 8D, Brawling Parry 3D+2, Dodge 6D+1, Grenade 5D, Heavy Weapons 3D+2, Melee Parry 6D+2, Melee 6D+2, Lightsaber 9D+1, 

    KNOWLEDGE 3D+1

    Alien Species 5D, Bureaucracy 6D, Cultures 5D, Languages 3D+2, Planetary Systems 4D+2, Streetwise 4D+2, Technology 3D+1, Value 5D, Scholar: Jedi Lore 4D

    MECHANICAL 2D

    Astrogation 4D+2, Beast Riding 4D, Repulsor Operation 6D+1, Starship Gunnery 2D, Space Transports 2D+1, Starship Shields 2D+1

    PERCEPTION 3D+1

    Bargain 5D, Command 6D, Con 5D+1, Gambling 5D+2, Hide/Sneak 7D, Search 5D+1

    STRENGTH 2D+2

    Brawling 4D, Climbing/Jumping 5D, Lifting 3D+1, Stamina 6D+2, Swimming 2D+2

    TECHNICAL 2D

    Computer Program/Repair 5D+2, Demolition 5D, Droid Program/Repair 5D+1, First Aid 2D, Repulsor Repair 4D+2, Security 4D+1, Starship repair 2D, Lightsaber Repair 6D+1

    Special Abilities:

    Force Skills: Control 6D+1, Sense 6D+2, Alter 5D

    Control: Absorb Dissipate Energy, Accelerate Healing, Concentration, Contort/Escape, Control Pain, Detoxify Poison, Enhance Attribute, Emptiness, Force Of Will, Reduce Injury, Remain Conscious

    Sense:  Danger Sense, Instinctive Astrogation, Life Detection, Life Sense, Magnify Senses, Receptive Telepathy, Sense Force, Sense Path, Shift Senses

    Alter:  Telekinesis

    Control & Sense:  Lightsaber Combat, Projective Telepathy, Farseeing

    Control & Alter:  Control Another’s Pain, Accelerate Another’s Healing, Transfer Force, 

    Control, Sense, & Alter:  Affect Mind, Battle Meditation, Enhance Coordination, Force Harmony, Projective Fighting

    Sense & Alter: Dim Another’s Senses

     

     

  14. Posted

    12 hours ago, micheldebruyn said:

    That scene where they're having a drink with the officer is one of the best in the entire show so far.

    Also, was there ever a practical point behind Operation Cinder, or was it just Sith lunacy?

     

    12 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

    A bit of both. "An Empire that can't protect me shouldn't exist" was the selling point, but he weeded out the less useful/loyal Imperials and pulled the most useful/loyal Imperials out to found/start/whatever the First Order, if I remember correctly.

    Yep. It was a “scorched earth” campaign. As far as Palpatine was concerned, if he couldn’t rule the galaxy, the galaxy, and everything in it, should die. 

    DurosSpacer reacted to this

  15. Posted · Edited by Tramp Graphics

    On 12/9/2020 at 4:34 PM, atama2 said:

    That’s unusual, have you seen this done elsewhere?  Again, I’ve never seen this before or heard of it.  You might have a unique concept there.  How many people participate?  (A lot of people struggle to find enough players for even a scheduled game among regulars.) 

    Most of the gaming stores in Buffalo, also have walk-in games. In fact, I’d say that’s the norm here. 

    On 12/9/2020 at 11:56 PM, EliasWindrider said:

    An unoptimized character isn't good at anything...  an optimized character is good at something  but not usually everything, you can still choose to be bad at something have the roleplaying experience you just described, but then have a self discovery arc and find/realize what you're actually good at and pivot to it.

    Not being good at anything leaves roleplaying a farce as the only entertaining option... Korath Lorren is the only character I've seen who wasn't really good at anything (which is kind of impressive in a bass ackward way considering he had about 1800 xp).

    Wrong. As per Ginny Di’s video, an “unoptimized” character is one that doesn’t take the “best”, most powerful spells, talents, or maxed out skills, to always win, or absolutely destroy every adversary, her example being a D&D Warlock without the typical Warlock destructive spells such as Eldridge Blast. 

    On 12/10/2020 at 1:13 AM, EliasWindrider said:

    A generalist starting character can have four 3's and two 2's for attributes and 2 ranks in brawl, if a character never advances significantly beyond starting character capabilities in any area they're going to be overshadowed in every area by someone else in the party and it won't even be close.  And someone who efficiently built a jack of all trades character can overshadow them in everything.

    This is essentially what happened with Tramp's 1800 xp signature character Korath Lorren, 4 attributes at 3, two at 2, no more than 3 ranks in any skill (and the there's were rarer), at least 1 rank in most skills, many had two, few had 3, had a wide variety of talents and force powers but didn't have the attributes or skills to make good use of almost any of them.  E.g. The full throttle chain of talents was useless for him because he only had 2 cunning and he flew a sil 5 ship that couldn't punch it and only got 1 pilot only maneuver per round. He drained the destiny pool fighting what for any other master character in the game was a mook.  About the only thing he had going for him was 4 force dice but he didn't have the depth in any force power tree to take advantage of it... that and he had super tricked out gear that he added to his sheet for free when converting to the system.

     

    Edit: how such a character came to be was he wasn't built/designed to fulfill the espoused character concept, he didn't even grow adaptively in response to feedback from the campaign (which by nature of being adaptive design can be considered optimization under an evolutionary algorithm), Tramp devised a formula which he used to convert the character from another system without respect to or consideration of the mechanics of this system, Korath is the only non starting character I've ever seen that couldn't be considered optimized under any definition.  New players to the system might not know the developers expected players to put most of their starting xp into raising attribute (which I think is plainly stated in at least core book), tramp made that "mistake"/violation of conventions with Korath.

    Circling around to the point... a character who doesn't shine at anything mechanically, not even at being a jack of all trades, relative to other players does NOT mechanically generate spotlight/center stage opportunities. 

    Maybe he did it in response, maybe he would have done it anyway, but he metagamed the narrative/story to place his character at the center of the story/spotlight virtually all of the time, which created enough friction with 3 batches of other players to kill the campaign 3 times. Twice (the second and third times) when the campaign was just about dead, I tried to step in either as GM or joining as a player to prolong the life of the campaign, both times he rebuffed my efforts to extend the life of the campaign and blamed me for the campaign dying.  This is the explanation behind his grievances with me regarding the character.  Maybe if he had the stats to mechanically generate the center stage opportunities  (and he apparently holds a grudge against me for recommending a character build that would have generated center stage opportunities consistent with his espoused character concept), he wouldn't have killed the game by causing interplayer conflict by meta gaming the narrative.

    Generating center stage/spot light opportunities of the type you desire to roleplay is how optimizing stats can enhance roleplaying.

    Those bolded few sentences was the point I was trying to get at since the beginning of the thread.

    Three ranks in a skill or ability is above average, according to the rules themselves. In D6, an attribute of 3D-4D was “above average”, and a skill of 5D-7D above the attribute was above average. Korath only had one skill that fit within that range: Lightsaber. At 9D+1, it was 5D+2 over his Dexterity of 3D+2 (his highest attribute). The only other skill that came close to that was Hide/Sneak at 7D ( which was 3D+2 over his base attribute of 3D+1 in Perception), with basic proficiency in a lot of other skills he picked up as needed over time. This means his proficiency in most skills was average at best. 
     

    So, yes, his skill set did grow adaptively over time, just not in this system. He did so in WEG D6. And no, he’s not optimized, nor was he ever intended to be, nor has he ever been “optimized”. Even in D6, his XP was never pumped only into a handful of skills. It was spread around into whatever skills were actually used in any given adventure. This is because, in D6, XP was often specifically earned for a specific skill that you used, and had to be applied accordingly to that skill. If you used a skill, you earned XP for that skill specifically. 

    The “formula” I used to convert him compared the dice values from WEG D6 with the ranks in F&D and how they correlated. Abilities pretty much worked out to be one-to-one. One full die in D6 (rounded down) equals one rank in F&D. For skills, it was three-to-one. Every three dice in a skill (rounded up) in D6 equals one rank in a skill in F&D. This is because ranks in skills FFG top out at five, while they top out at fifteen in D6 after subtracting the attributes. This is particularly evident in Force skills, which top out at fifteen dice. 

    If you round up Lightsaber from 9D+1 to 10D, and round down Dexterity from 3D+2 to 3D (which converts to 3 ranks in Agility) then subtract the latter from the former, then divide by three (rounding up) that’s three ranks in Lightsaber. If you apply that same formula to his other skills they all top out at 1-2 ranks each. That’s basic to average proficiency in most of his skills. Is that “optimized”? No, it’s not. But he never was “optimized” not even in WEG. This is because that system did not favor “optimization”. It favored putting XP where you used a skill. So, in order to “optimize” a character, you’d need to use a specific handful of skills a lot, and not use other skills to any significant degree.  

    The hardest part of converting WEG to F&D was talents and Force powers, and figuring out how to determine how much XP every pip in each of the three Force skills was worth. WEG didn’t use talents, but D20 RCRB did, and several WEG Force powers become talents in both D20 and in F&D.  The problem with talents, and the only reason why Korath ended up with a huge XP count was a consequence of how talent trees are laid out. In order to reach many talents the character should have, you have to go through several other talents within a given specialization to get to it. This means you can end up with a lot of “extra” talents you wouldn’t have otherwise had. That’s what happened with Korath.  If he were built in Genesis, or if you could just buy whatever talents you wished, his XP value would probably be significantly lower, probably less than 1,000 XP, or even 700. 

    My latest reworking of him cuts over 100XP from him, bringing his XP down to  1760 XP, of which 1650 is “Earned” XP. That’s 150 XP for Knight (or Heroic) level, and an additional 1500 XP for “Master” (or “Epic”) level.  It also replaces Sentry with Knight, which is more in line with his original character sheet in D6. This is also what will be the standard for any other “Epic” level characters in the future, if (and when) I ever decide to try a game at that level again.

    Secondly, starting a human character with four threes in attributes would have required I take the +10 XP at character creation option. This is contrary to his concept, as a character strongly adherent to the Light Side of the Force. This was a character who in WEG, never got even a single Dark Side Point. He was the epitome of a Light Side Paragon. So that is the option I chose for his rebuild. That means that there was no way to put all of his beginning XP into attributes, even if I wanted to. It should also be noted that even in D6, none of his Attributes hit the 4D mark, and only three of his attributes were in the 3D range, and two of the six D6 attributes (Mechanical and Technical) have no F&D equivalent, and one F&D attribute (Willpower) being an average of two WEG attributes (Intelligence and Perception, as was the case with the D20 Wisdom attribute). His highest attribute in WEG was 3D+2 in Dexterity. 

    Every choice I made in converting him was to recreate this character as faithfully as possible with as few XP as possible, it was not to “optimize” him by this system’s standards, nor by any system’s standards, because he was never optimized to begin with. 
     

    micheldebruyn reacted to this

  18. Posted · Edited by Tramp Graphics

    On 12/10/2020 at 10:51 AM, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

    *Scrolling through notes...*

    *Facepalm*

    I forgot to have Kurak get you the info on Thorned Circle. When we changed plans with the Barabel, I forgot to account for it. I'll mention that you received a datapackage from him, to go through later.

    Von hasn't posted, but Tramp hasn't been on. If @Tramp Graphics doesn't have anything he wants to post, I'll get on with the narration and job info.

    Ge’tal is probably at the bar getting drunk or into fights (or both) 😈Anyone com with?

  20. Posted

    45 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

    "Ginsu with a lightsaber" is not wording *I* would use to describe a character, it is an exact quote which you have used repeatedly over the years to describe Korath. The first time I heard you use it back I think in 2005 when you were describing Korath to me for the first time the sentence was "He's a real ginsu with a lightsaber".  Earlier in this thread you expressed the same idea in different vernacular 

    From page 2Elias is referring to my signature character, 

    Elias is referring to my signature character, Korath, who was never even brought up, nor is he the subject of this thread. That character was a D6 character, converted to D20 RCRB, and again to F&D. He started out as a focused lightsaber jockey, and, indeed, a lot of his XP in D6 went into that skill, but a lot more went into many other, more diverse skills as time went on playing him in an actual campaign

    In all three failed play by posts on this forum the campaign was centered around the jedi star (Korath's ship), in the last one you tried coerce KathyKitten away from playing a star fighter ace with here own sil 3 ship into being a gunner on your ship with her junior character, and when after much antagonism her master character didn't give you what you felt was the proper respect you announced your intent to drop off the character at the next port, thereby forcing the character out of the campaign.  The GM had to retcon her one shotting Korath dead to stunning  Korath unconscious and KathyKitten quit the campaign shortly thereafter.

    That is perhaps the clearest example of what you do, metagame power playing... saying it's my way or the highway after trying to make sure there is no other option to stay in the game.

    As for Rei... and Korath... who you professed to a drill sergeant of a jedi master... when your idea of roleplaying a character is berating of the players in character, that violates rule zero don't be a d!ck, good roll playing never justifies d!ckish behavior.

    right after I had compromised at your insistence what my "millennial female pantoran force sensitive smuggler" starting character would have in character said (i.e. I compromised my good roleplaying) to let you have the "big reveal" moment that was already obvious to everyone else in the campaign, you turned around and berated me in character, refused to alter it when I asked, insisted that I respond in character to resolve it... I did... my millennial female character left the cantina after being insulted after having just walked into it and not having seen how the fight started.  The in character good roleplaying that you insisted on left your starting character without a connection to the party.  At that time the mediation started and you announced for the first time that you wanted to roleplay an ongoing antagonistic rivalry between our characters which I was not down for, you refused to give up, then I quit the campaign, then you went back and edited the initial post that triggered it but still refused to give up on the antagonistic rivalry between our characters, but that was too little too late because I had already left the campaign.

     

    Three? There have only been two, and in both games, the trouble didn’t start until you joined in.

     Secondly, I never used the term “Ginsu with a lightsaber” to describe him. Was he lightsaber focused? Yes, to a point. He was above average with a lightsaber, but not an “ubermensch” with one. For that he’d need over 15D+. He was the best in our D6 group with a lightsaber, but probably the weakest with the Force, even though he had a lot of powers, and that is because every time you added a pip to any Force skill, you also learned a new power. That adds up to a lot of Force powers over time, even with only a few dice each in your Force skills. 

    As for demanding respect? He’s the Captain of the ship. He was the person responsible for everyone’s safety and the running of the ship. That is what demanded respect. It had nothing to do with his “power level” or “Uber skill” with a lightsaber.

    If you have a starting XP “nobody” with his own ship, guess what, he’s the captain, he deserves the respect due the captain of that ship. That means he makes the rules on that ship for that ship because he is 100% responsible for everyone and everything on that ship. 

    Third, it was you who insisted on “my way or the highway” even after the GM at the time had said to take the discussion out of the thread, and you were reminded repeatedly to do so, but you still pushed the issue in the thread. You broke the table rules by initially bringing in two related characters even though you knew that wasn’t allowed for that campaign. You knew going in that a player’s two characters could have no relationship whatsoever with each other. You knew that my ship could not accommodate another ship docking with it, but you pushed for another player to have a ship because you didn’t want Korath to have any “authority”, and you weren’t even in the campaign yet.   And you insisted on dragging another player’s character with you in your huff when Rei called your character out for her inaction, never even giving that player any agency in that decision. Lastly, You insisted I scrap my starting character entirely. That is what I refused to do. You killed that game. You were the one metagaming. 

    You did the same thing in the first game. You came in decided you were going to take over as GM against my wishes, and tried to push me into a no win situation against a Star Destroyer. No thank you. You don’t like how I built Korath, you don’t like how I play him. You never even really got to know how I was going to play my starting character because you quit in a huff all because my character got angry with your character (and everyone else in the bar) over your character’s (and their) lack of action in the situation with the bullies. 

  22. Posted · Edited by Tramp Graphics

    3 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

     

    You have stated that Korath was a ginzu with a lightsaber, strong in the force,  strong willed, a jack of all trades, drill sergeant of a jedi master, and I have seen you roleplay him as that and more across decades and across systems.    The ffg build you put together for Korath did not measure up to that concept and you drained the destiny pool to upgrade your combat checks while fighting mooks.  I encouraged you to use a build that fulfilled your concept using 400 to 500 fewer xp than your build for Korath at the time.  

    I have optimized  most of my characters for broad utility (Jack of all trades with an area of elevated focus) with interesting novelty gimmick abilities that correspond to a narrative  schtick for the character, and my character optimization has always been second place to and in support of how I have roleplayed the character.  I can and have "always" (for as long as you have known me) optimized my characters in a way that enhances the story rather than detracting from it. So say that all I do is look at the numbers is at best a highly incomplete statement, and when you say mechanically best it's false because I as noted usually optimize my characters for broad utility with the goal of being second best at as much as possible so I can round out and support a party rather than hog the spotlight.

    For the context of why I was trying to help you build a character that matches your espoused concept (i.e. what follows is an explanation not an attack)

    You don't fit the definition of a power gamer but you most certainly are a metagaming power player, and you "always" (standard disclaimer on always but I've never seen you not do this with a character)  try to control the narrative so that Korath (or Rei) is "always" in the spotlight/at the center of the story in a position of power so that characters that do not defer to him (or her) are either put in their place or forced out of the game.   That's the kind of metagaming that detracts from (and kills) games, not building well rounded characters.  And i was hoping that if you had a character that could mechanically pull his own weight/live up to your espoused concept then maybe you wouldn't feel the need to metagame the narrative to get enough time in the spotlight.  

     

    No, I haven’t. I’ve said that in D6, he had a relatively impressive lightsaber skill (at 9D+1, of which 5D+2 was actual skill), though certainly not anywhere near best in the galaxy, and he knew a lot of different Force powers. His actual three Force skills (Control, Sense, and Alter), however, didn’t even hit 7D (often considered the standard for a fully trained Knight in that system), being 5D+1, 5D+2, and 6D respectively), and that he picked up a lot of different skills over the course of actual game play. 

    The D20 conversion made him into a 18th level combat monster, and that was solely because of how WotC designed their conversion system. 

    I based my FFG conversion primarily on my original D6 character, only taking the talents from D20, something that didn’t exist in WEG. 

    As for your assertion that I always try to control the narrative, check out the Kandosii, Beroya campaign in the EotE beginner forum. I’m currently almost purely combat support (much to the GM’s chagrin, who wishes I could contribute more from a role-play standpoint), a blunt instrument sent in to crack skulls, and, given my current limited amount of time to role-play because of work, that suits me just fine. Even then that character fails more often than she succeeds (mostly because of poor rolls), and has often taken on a more comedic role as a result of her pratfalls and other antics.  

    This was also true of my Zeltron Racer, and Wookiee Sentry, and many other characters I’ve played in other campaigns I’ve played over the years. Neither character dominated the narrative, nor did I try to make them do so. 

    So, no, I don’t try to dominate the narrative. I role-play a character, each based upon any of various specific concepts, that each has specific skills, and personality quirks unique to that character. The fact that you didn’t like how I played those two characters (one of which didn’t even really get a chance to be developed beyond one situation) does not mean I was trying to dominate the narrative.  
     

    This was also the case with Rei. I was role- playing that character, a character with a very rigid sense of justice who was angry because neither your character, nor the Jedi master there, nor anyone else in that bar had lifted a finger to stop two bullies from picking on those weaker than them. You took it as a personal attack on you when it wasn’t and killed the game before the whole scenario could be resolved. The one who was trying to control the narrative was you. You tried to control how my character was introduced, what people knew about my character before I was ready to reveal it using knowledge your character couldn’t have known. You were the one using metagaming to try to control the narrative and play spoiler. 

  23. Posted

    5 hours ago, Jegergryte said:

    Because then it becomes a relativistic concept, that applies whenever, wherever, regardless ... and it becomes meaningless. On the other hand, it is not necessarily an absolute term either, despite allusions to silly notions of "objectivity".

    If I understand you correctly, you define "benefit" from a normative perspective of "good" versus "bad" (not along an ethical dimension, but along a pragmatic and instrumentalist/system rational dimension)? Sure. But this "optimisation" may not be sought, or desired, by a given player. It may be that this "benefit" (here meant as something akin to improved chances of game mechanical "goal-attainment") is exactly the opposite from what the player desires. If the "goal-attainment" is understood as any which goal the player may have (i.e. game mechanical, role playing, and/or whatever else may be the "goal"), then we are moving towards relativism, the term becomes universally applicable, and tends towards the meaningless (or at the very least pointless). Context matters, when applying it on comparatively disparate and obfuscated cases of agent behaviour and individual decision-making. In other words, vernacularisation of the term can be problematic (it can enhance the relativistic meaning-content), particularly if one party adheres to a more specialised or specific understanding as related to a specific sector, discipline, or field, whereas the other does not. This makes deliberations and communicative rationality problematic, or at the very least challenging, when the premises are unequal and opaque. Particularly, if the parties involved inhabits different ontological and epistemological positions, knowingly or not.

    So, being clear on what "optimisation" is understood as is pretty important - whether it's a wide or narrow understanding. In this case, I see that whether you build a character to follow "conventions" and do what is "right" (mathematically, tactically, conceptually) or going against this and focusing your fun (whatever that is - but here understood as making the character "wrong", i.e. not making the decisions that increases game mechanical or system rational choices adhering to the RPG system in question), can both be optimisation, but that's not really the issue or question as I understand it.

    It's about adhering to traditions or "consensus" relating to how to make the "best" [insert archetype] taking advantage of the options and alternatives offered by the game system (i.e. relating to dice rolling and ensuring increased chances of success (and advantage, and triumph)), versus not focusing on the metrics of the system - at least not with the intent on optimising chances of "system-based goal-attainment". The discussion was not, in the beginning, on optimisation, but about making different, unconventional, and ... "wrong" (referring to consensus) choices. But I may be wrong. :ph34r:

    I prefer my players to start out with unconventional choices, under-optimised if you will, to learn how to "play-to-lose", this creates a more natural and less meta-gamey experience, where players are not afraid to attempt things they (according to convention) should not because they are "bad at it". As the game progresses, optimisation (in whatever way you choose to understand it) usually happens, whether intentionally or unintentionally, as players seek to realise their vision of the character and the journey it's on. This is also why I often choose to play with new players after a group has understood or is starting to game the system ... that's fine, but not the kind of games I like to run, because then the story is soon relegated to be a background thing, only serving as a source for XP to make "the optimised character".

    Anyway. Move along, nothing to read here. :ph34r:

    You hit the nail right on the head. Optimization, as Ginny Di is defining it revolves around maximizing the character’s game mechanics. Always looking for the best skills, the best attributes, the best weapons, the best talents, the best spells for that class/career from a mechanics perspective. And @EliasWindrider, you do optimize your characters, by that definition. You tried to convince me to do the same when I was converting Korath, which was not appropriate for what I was attempting to accomplish. What Ginny Di is talking about is not building a character to maximize his or her mechanical abilities, but, rather, concentrate completely on concept, even if that concept ends up mechanically “weaker” than other examples of that archetype. 

    Rimsen and P-47 Thunderbolt reacted to this

  25. Posted

    58 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

    1) unless "sub-optimized" character is in scare quotes (which is possible) she is optimizing her character to fulfill her concept, and that means building in weaknesses to better fit the concept

    2) optimal does not mean most powerful or most capable, in the context of rpg characters it means best fulfilling a concept, the concept maybe a specialist, jack of all trades, or a fish out of water among an infinite list of other things.

    3) the only thing I've advocated as the "right way" to build a character is the one that best fulfills a concept, regardless of what concept the player chooses for the character is

    4) be careful with "always" and "never" because both are rarely true

    5) it's impossible to maximize everything, and while it is true that I usually prefer broadly, capable jack of all trades characters with an area of elevated focus that means no strength actually gets maximized, as second best at as many things as possible is the goal (making your characterization of  me even "usually" false), I have on occasion played against type, just one example is I built an awkward book smart fish out of water wunderkind mid teenage jedi knight with scraggly facial hair a cracking voice that was frequently discounted by "adults" as a "just a padawan" and the build had a few noticeable deficiencies, sadly the campaign didn't happen.

    Emphasis on the “wunderkind”, a prodigy. Even if he had one or two deficiencies, it’s because the character was probably min-maxed to focus on one or two key strengths  that played into his career and specialization. 
    I’ve seen your character builds. I’ve read your threads on concept builds. In every one of them you look to mix and match careers and specializations that maximize a character’s abilities and minimize his or her weaknesses. You’ve also pushed others to do so as well, myself included. You always push Niman Disciple as the end-all be-all lightsaber spec that everyone should take because of how powerful you believe it is. For you it’s all about building the better stats. It’s all a numbers game. You do the exact same thing she is telling us many D&D players and GMs she’s played with do. 

    Secondly, no, those aren’t scare quotes. And if you actually watched her video, she specifically doesn’t optimize her characters at all. She doesn’t take the most powerful spells of her class, she doesn’t pump up her class’ optimal stats, etc. For her, the numbers are insignificant. They’re just numbers. She builds the characters she wants and lets them grow organically, taking spells, skills etc that are often completely counter to the “accepted” norms for that class. Her signature character, Ashling (sp?), being her prime example: a Warlock without Eldridge Blast, nor many other powerful typical Warlock spells; a Warlock multclassed with Druid. Have you ever built a character like that? Have you ever built a Jedi who wasn’t strong in the Force? One who wasn’t necessarily good with a lightsaber? Have you ever not put most or all of your starting XP into attributes? Have you ever not taken the +10 starting XP option during character creation?  No. You build to the career’s strengths. You optimize the stats. You maximize the chances of success in the dice rolling. To you it’s all about the statistics and averages. You’re a numbers person, always looking at the numbers. It’s why you’re an engineer. It’s how you think. 

×
×
  • Create New...