Jump to content

RogueJedi

Members
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About RogueJedi

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

416 profile views
  1. Sure absolutely. I'm not disagreeing with people sharing them, but the reasoning being shared. I don't think the reasons given are sufficient to not open source it given all the potential upsides. This is the reasoning I've disagreed with. It's not really enough, all the cards would still be in his hands; he can pick and choose what goes in. Better yet maybe he can get help cleaning it up if it's really that bad off. Admittedly there's a level of "I'm new to this debate and haven't seen him say no / disagree with my reasoning." That said, I think that's the minor factor. It's more the amount of work (even ignoring data) combined with it largely working as-is. As an aside, here's another bug: When I go to add a special ability and special dice, every adjustment I make resets the dice type selector back to "Add Boost".
  2. So we shouldn't try to convince him? The reality is more complicated than this though. The fact of the matter is OggDude's doesn't have enough wrong with it that it's necessarily worth going through the effort of rebuilding just to get it open source and fix a couple things. Complaints about the software are minor and the data is "open". Until he disappears altogether or the app becomes more trouble than it's worth, I doubt you'll see much traction on a new effort. Especially not while people hold out hope that he might open source it. Admittedly I haven't read all nearly 400 pages of the thread, but I've only seen other people talk about a single position he apparently held or holds on the issue. Stuff like "go do it yourself then" doesn't seem very constructive to me. I want to help OggDude, not take the ball away.
  3. Exactly this. I have considered writing my own, but it's a pretty large undertaking to sell myself on when OggDude's is sitting right here so I'd rather not.
  4. Still more work than just having the stat block feature that multiple other areas already have. I'd fix it myself if I could, but he hasn't open sourced it for some reason. Speaking of, there seems to be a bug in the Equipment stat block button. It will not display a stat block for "owned" instances if they are focused, it simply does nothing.
  5. Just as much / more work, see below. Copy the encounter blocks into OneNote. With stat blocks it's one click, for some reason this is different.
  6. I'd love it if I could just get a copy encounter button like the copy stat block so I don't have to go to the print preview, take and crop a screenshot for each page.
  7. I've seen this mentioned a couple times and I hate to say it but it's false. Open sourcing it doesn't mean anyone can just start making changes to the primary version that OggDude distributes, you'd submit your changes to OggDude who can then review them, ask for changes, reject, or approve them. Just because it's a mess doesn't mean others can't grok it and help clean it up or make improvements without "BAD THINGS" happening. He's managed to create the primary tool for this game that people turn to, so there are already people (like me) who are ready and willing to help. What better way to continue learning than reviewing outside contributions?
  8. My understanding was that the check would actually be for whether the door opens or not, disadvantage/despair would control alternative conditions like alarms, feedback, etc.
  9. I've noticed in a few of the pre-written adventures (for example, Lessons of the Past, F&D p439) that certain tasks require skill checks where there is nothing else really to be done when they've failed but to try again. Am I meant to fill these failures with something that forces them away so they can try again later? While I see the tension increase for needing skill checks on crucial tasks, I'm not sure how to deal with the failures.
  10. They were there, https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/products/star-wars-force-and-destiny/ still links to it in the "Star Wars Roleplaying Supplements" section.
  11. Right, I get that the transmissions screwing up is a narrative prompt. If you're also with players who aren't used to the format, they might not realize that there's something they can investigate about it right now. Just not sure if I should let opportunities like that slip them by, or if I should try to point out they could make a check to investigate.
  12. Like this? I'll see if I can find some of the other examples I ran into.
  13. Hi All, I've just picked up a bunch of the books (6!) in preparation for starting a new campaign with some friends. I've played D&D ages ago (10+ years), but I've never done any GMing before. Admittedly I'm diving into the deep end here, so I'm looking for some advice. My plan is to start with a couple of the pre-made adventures and transition from them into something I've cooked up based around them. However, in reading through the adventures, I notice there's an occasional setup I'm confused about how to deal with. In some cases, the adventure will present a number of options for skill check outcomes at a time in which there's nothing strictly prompting the players to do a skill check. Am I supposed to point out the options that are available to them or are they expected to attempt those checks unprompted? In some cases (ex. Onslaught at Arda, Shadows of the Future, p. 16) even pointing out that they could do a check may tip them off to coming plot. Thanks for any advice.
  14. Does this combination enable speed 5 squadrons? The timing of it is a bit questionable. "Each squadron you activate may increase its speed to 4 until the end of its activation." & "[..] the speed of each squadron that a friendly ship activates is increased by 1 to a maximum of 5, until the end of that squadron's activation." There's doesn't appear to be a clear order of operations here, both are simply triggered on a squadron being activated by a ship. So either All Fighters bumps up towards a limit of 4, or you raise the speed to 4 and then add 1 from All Fighters.
×
×
  • Create New...