Jump to content

Galakk Fyyar

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Galakk Fyyar

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

472 profile views
  1. We're back all over the place with completely irrelevant politics and real-world talk. I don't believe I do, but hey, let's agree to disagree. We've got some significantly different outlooks even on the history of RPGs by the looks of it.
  2. I assume the harsh rules for what they considered "Dark side" play was probably a sort of CYA. Then even more than now RPGs were being hit with tons of scrutiny for their content, especially DND. However, what you said with Heroes and Rogues is factually untrue. The book doesn't express that Imperial characters will always be evil or are expected to defect or die. In fact one of the first sidebars about your character's allegiance talks about that, while certain actions can clearly be good or evil, the idea of the war and who you side with isn't cut and dry and largely depends on what you believe in or who you're with. Specifically it gives an example that an ace pilot might be seen as a brave hero by their own side and a despicable villain by the other. You aren't good or evil just by signing on to one side and in most books there's a broad sense of freedom in how you approach things. With Age of Rebellion's own Rebel scenarios you can take evil actions if you want to. The player decides what they do, not the book they're using, and the same would be true of an Imperial rulebook. Just like the 90s though people would probably find ways to get offended anyway. No one's giving them crap now either, but I know an Imperial book has been a suggestion for the previous systems too. Just like then it's easy now to run an Imperial game with what we've got, it's just that an expansion dedicated to Imperial games would be nice to have. It's a request or an idea, not an angry demand.
  3. I get what you're saying though I disagree, but this isn't the place for a debate on that. If someone would take offense or not enjoy an Imperial-sided game book, they're not forced to buy it or read it, but that possibility is more likely than not the reason we won't get a book like that in the first place.
  4. I understand that, and I think it's most likely why we've not got and probably never will get any such book. People can and will look for and find absolutely any reason to get offended.
  5. Equally nonsense that characters and games have to inherently deal with or address problems. Thieves don't have to have monologues about why stealing is bad and why crime is a problem in our world. Barbarians don't have to act as a message about violence and bloodshed. Lawful Paladins don't need to talk about real-world legal corruption. Those saying you can't do an Imperial game unless it specifically addresses that the Empire is bad would seem then to want those sorts of things. You don't need to address political or any kind of real world issues when you play a game if you don't want to. Want to run a game where the Imperial party is heroic and the Imperials are good? Go right ahead. I seriously don't get why this even has to be said. Even if you were to decide to do bad things, how is that any different from doing bad things in another game? Even the same game if you play as Rebels and choose to do bad things? By doing something evil in a game you're not endorsing it in the real world, and there isn't some kind of expectation that you'll use a game specifically to soap-box about real-world issues otherwise you shouldn't run it. I haven't seen that type of argument for a Star Wars game before but I've seen it for a few other systems and it's equally nonsense to me. It's a game. Run it, play it, enjoy it. If you don't enjoy it, find a game you do. If you want to talk about real politics or issues in it, go right ahead, but don't act like everyone has to as well or else they're doing something wrong.
  6. You know what? Agree to disagree. I'm sick of modern politics being forced into games. If you're of the mentality that that's inevitable as part of the nature of RPGs or should even be encouraged as a good thing, we're so far to a point of not seeing eye to eye that talking about it isn't going to be worth anyone's time. Nobody was talking about politics at all until the last two pages or so, nobody was talking about Nazis or Trump or the Electoral College or whatever, but now it's all gone off the rails and I don't think it's salvageable.
  7. I think no one's "ashamed" because most people don't really care about politics as far as roleplaying games go. You play a role in a game for entertainment. Politics aren't relevant.
  8. That's their fault though, not the people dressing up.
  9. I can understand it too, but I also feel strongly against the idea that we as gamemasters need to tailor our games and change their content to avoid even the possibility of someone getting offended or having a disagreement. Mentioning again the video saying that people shouldn't be allowed to play as the German side or as Terrorists because it can be offensive, there's a level of understanding and acceptance when you go into a game. You chose to play a game about WWII, or a shooter about counter-terrorists versus terrorists, and therefore there's an underlying acceptance of that. If someone wants to make an Imperial game, whether they want to cast the Imperials as good guys, bad guys, or gray guys, there's a level of implicit acceptance from people who want to join. If you join an Imperial game and are offended by playing an Imperial, the gamemaster shouldn't be expected to change things up and adjust it for you, you should be expected to find a different game. Nobody is making you play it. If you're playing at a con and someone comes to watch your Imperial game, then get offended that you're playing as Imperials, it's not the gamemaster's fault when that person chose to get involved. If they don't like it, it's as easy as going to another table, not setting the players into panic mode thinking they've done something wrong. I feel that that mentality leans too far towards mollycoddling.
  10. Modern politics shouldn't dictate entertainment and hobbies. There was a time, not that long ago, that RPG writers didn't care who they offended or why because it's entertainment. If you don't like it, don't partake in it. That was how the story went and to me it's sad that we've gone away from that. That hasn't happened at all, and even if it did, why do you care what someone else's politics are in the sense of playing RPGs? When I play I don't care if the person at my table is a Republican or a Democrat or Left or Right or Center or any of that. If nobody's bluntly forcing their beliefs on you, I don't see the problem. RPGs are not about politics and politics of real-world sorts don't have any business at a gaming table, unless you yourself want to include them. They shouldn't be the norm and they shouldn't be a basis for what games get a pass and what games shouldn't be allowed. I'd say the majority of people who play RPGs have at least some expectation of getting away from real world concerns, whatever they may be.
  11. It's political BS which is honestly getting annoying to see. I think this topic's run its course.
  12. It's not hard at all to play that way. Morality doesn't even have to be a thing to begin with. It's a galactic civil war, the guys in uniform don't care about some philosophical war debate, they're fighting to stay alive. If you do want to talk morality, you can show off the good things the Empire does, or even have the players working with reformers on the inside or doing it themselves, people who acknowledge the Imperial system ain't great but it's not totally awful and it can get better. Acknowledging the Empire's flaws doesn't mean you want to join their enemies and destroy it.
  13. Is this really necessary? I think there's more to it than that. Yeah, as far as Operation Cinder and such goes, the Emperor and the Imperial structure are wholly evil, but in the old setting where that never happened, there were things to suggest the Emperor didn't intend it to be that way. He was still evil, but so it goes he intended the Empire to be a good thing to rescue the galaxy in some fashion, and tried to make it an effective, benevolent organization, at least in his mind. For that, I'd argue that the Empire isn't entirely evil, as in rotten to the core, but just very misguided from otherwise good goals. Far to the edge of the ends justify the means. With that there are good things the Empire's done, and good people in it, to the point that I don't think anyone who's in it is inevitably a horrible person. What do you mean by roleplaying a bad guy and playing a statblock with affiliation? I think the difference there is only what you make it to be.
  14. That's opinion. I disagree, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. There isn't anything inherently good or evil about the Empire or the Rebellion, it's the individuals within that hit both ends of that spectrum. I'm sure some disagree with that opinion too, but asking for more options doesn't mean saying I'm right, you're wrong. That's the basis of what players have wanted in this topic, to have the options to do what they want for their own games. Someone is always going to be offended, and there's really nothing offensive about providing detailed options for playing one side or the other. Who is honestly going to pick up a book that has a TIE Pilot as a career option and suddenly feel personally attacked? This is an argument I've seen used to shoot down suggestions of a German campaign in some WWII games. Even Battlefield 1, a WWI game, didn't get a Central Powers campaign because of worries over offending people, even hitting the point where recently an influential Youtube channel suggested forbidding people from even playing as WWII Germany or CSGO's Terrorists in multiplayer games. I think that's absolutely irrational. Why stifle your options and limit yourself just to avoid offending someone? If an Imperial Navy book got made, no one is forcing anyone else to buy it. If you don't feel comfortable with it as an option, that's fine, avoiding it is as easy as not buying it. There's a substantial part of the fanbase that thinks Lucas didn't do a good job with handling Star Wars, at best, and at worst they feel like he ruined it in the end. I'm not sure that everyone wants to emulate Lucas with their ideas of Star Wars. Even with that aside, when you run a game you're aiming to tell your story more often than not, not someone else's. We all know how common and encouraged it is to tinker pre-built modules to a GM's own specifications even. This hobby is about running your games with your worlds and telling your stories. If you want to run and emulate someone else, that's totally fine too, it can be really fun, but it's not a leash you have to be stuck to in some kind of way that if it's not what an original author wanted, you're not allowed to do it, sorta way. I don't see anything valid with telling everybody they can't do something because Lucas wouldn't do it, regardless of how they want to run their own games. That isn't true at all. Look at any number of previous Expanded Universe stories and you'll see a whole heap of good people fought for the Empire until it ended or they died.
  15. I do get what you're saying but there's a misunderstanding here that the Empire and the people in it are either evil as a default or will inevitably be evil, which I don't think is true. PCs in AoR campaigns as Rebels can do some very nasty things if they choose to. Putting on a Rebel uniform doesn't mean you're automatically a good person, nor does putting on the armor of an Imperial Stormtrooper. There's arguments to be made about the overarching morality, but I think it's not really debatable that the soldiers serving either side are automatically morally good or morally bad. I really don't like the idea of limiting what options can be explored for an RPG on account of the modern political atmosphere and the worry someone will get offended.
  • Create New...