Jump to content

Count Cenex de Solaan

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Count Cenex de Solaan

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'm sorry to (hopefully only) briefly sidetrack the thread here, but IME this particular statement is flat out false, and typically voiced by people who weren't a part of the hobby during the times they refer to. Yes, the old RPG community was for the most parts consisting of a fairly small and relatively homogeneous group of people within various local communities. But in my experience, most of these communities were not hostile to people that didn't look like themselves. Rather the opposite, because it was typically a pretty nice thing to find someone new to be able to talk to the hobby about, without being immediately labled as a nerd/geek/wierdo, and this common ground typically overcame any difference in genetic differences or sexual preferanced between the individuals in question. The fact that few people from outside of this stereotypical group of geeky/nerdy white males played RPG games at the time, had more to do with a variety of other factors, than with hostility against "outsiders" amongst the playerbase. As for your comment on White Wolf and their games Spartancfos, I'll restrain my comment here to saying that I strongly disagree with you on this on every level I can think of right now. But this is not the place for a more detailed debate on that subject. If anyone should feel the irresistable urge to throw napalm or similar after me for this comment, pls. do it in a PM, rather than in this thread.
  2. At the end of the day, most of this stuff boils down to "don't be a ****/asshat". An RPG is a collaborative storytelling game where all the participants typically are there to have fun. If someone has personal issues concerning particular things, it's something that has to be dealt with somehow. Otherwise the game stops being fun, and character disagreements can spill over into player disagreements. And I agree. "But it's what my character would do" is only VERY rarely an argument for a character to behave in a way that ruins the other participants fun.
  3. As long as the dark siders aren't playing "chaotic stupid" evil, and the light siders aren't "lawful rigid", a campaign with mixed morals can work quite fine. Internal group disagreements need to stay verbal, and players MUST be able to separate players from characters. Let the dark siders do some stuff on their own, where they can engage in actions the light siders would object to. And let the light siders not see the dark siders doing stuff they would have to actively oppose.
  4. I believe someone stated one in an article over at d20radio.com.
  5. Far as I know, the Empire first continued to use the clones as stormtroopers. In the now Legends material, the Empire did continue to create new clones for a while, but not clones made by the Kaminoans, but rather some other process refered to as the "Sparti Cloning process". These clones were grown much faster than the Kaminoan ones, and had most of their training and other memories and skills artificially implanted into their brain. The process worked, but led to a high rate of mental problems with the troopers, which eventually lead to regular recruiting.
  6. While I do get what you are saying, I also have to say that I partly disagree with some of it. I agree completely with regards to computer games. But IMO a tabletop RPG is not the same beast, though character development is a driving factor. Character development is an interesting part of the RPG game, as is getting better gear. But that being said, for me personally, it comes secondary to the story and the character's experiences within the game. And I tend to find the whole "strapped for cash and resources" thing to be more of an annoyance than a driver. I would personally rather be able to create the character I want to play from the start of the game, and then concentrate on the internal development in the character, and the story, than have to start out with a skeleton for the character I want to play, and then have to wait a year or two, before the character begins to resemble what I want to play. Yes, I exadurate a bit here, but I trust you get my point. As for the matter of challenging players, I partly agree with you. Yes, if every player is a walking tank that requires anti-vehicle weapons to take down, then it becomes a problem to throw "ordinary levels of threat" at them, which is bad for the game. But two things. 1) I generally don't find that even a well armoured and equipped character is that problematic to hurt in Star Wars, and 2) there are a lot of other ways to challenge a character, than straight combat, so IMO the well-equipped character problem is less of an issue in this game than many others. But of course YMMV. I agree with you that there is the issue of "why continuing to risk your life, if you can retire in luxury?", but that's a pretty ordinary problem in RPG's. Especially D&D IMO. But for the same reason, the players tend to be able to come up with some form of justification for continuing to play their characters, even after they could theoretically retire.
  7. I'm with Immortalfrieza on this. I won repeat the post, so I'll just add these 3 comments. 1. Why is it really a problem that the players have some money? 2. Don't just throw various crap at your players to drain their money. It's not fun. 3. Throw spacebattles at them. Repairing starships is expensive.
  8. To take the easy one first. I can't really say if it's common for groups to start players with new characters off at a lower XP level than the rest of the group. Amongst my normal gaming group, one GM does it for his D&D3.5 campaign consistantly. His argument is that he doesn't want a new character to enter the group and completely disrupt the group dynamic, before they've had some games to "find their place within the group". That's based on a couple of bad experiences he's had in the past. Personally it rubs me the wrong way, because when I've experienced it, I've felt like I've been the 3rd wheel until the character's caught up to the rest of the party. But that's d20 and level based games. FFG and level less games have a different dynamic. If I'm reading you right, you're starting with 120XP vs. the roughly 300XP the party has at this point? In this case I'd say that you'll probably be able to feel it, but depending on how you create your characters, it'll be more or less of an issue. It will also depend on what you specifically run into in the game. If you run some times with very few dice rolls and lots of roleplaying, then it's not going to be much of an issue. But if you roll dice all the time, and have to use a broad spectrum of skills and abilities, and face above average difficulties, then it could be an issue. Personally I wouldn't start off a player with less XP than the rest of the group, but that's me, and it's partially because I personally HATE playing at beginning levels where I always find that I can't create a character that even remotely matches the character in my head. As for "catching up" to the other players, that will depend entirely on how your GM awards XP. If you all get the same XP always, you'll never catch up. If the GM awards differentiated amounts of XP based on some factors, then you might catch up at some pace, depending on the details. My recommendation to you would be to voice your concern on the matter with your GM, but start off at the level he wants you to, and then see how it goes. If it turns out that it's not an issue, then just go with it. If it turns out that it creates problems, either mechanically for the character, or seriously detracts from your enjoyment of the game, then take it up with your GM again, and see if you can't come to some arrangement.
  9. A "Super" Bacta worth the equivalent of a Nobel prize could theoretically be something as "simple" as a more efficient way to manufacture it, leading to a lower cost product. Or a synthetic version that also allows for cheaper production (is Bacta based on a natural product? Or is it 100% synthetic in nature already?). It could also be a way of creating or diluting the substance, so that it becomes "thinner" and more watery in substance, eliminating some of the discomfort/disconcerting feelings associated with of being engulfed in the stuff (see the description on Bacta here). Or it could be an invention that will make it easier to incorporate into some other product (which already exists). My point is that you can have the scientist working on something Nobel worthy, without needing to come up with a changed game mechanic for the Bacta, and hence risk messing with game balance in any way.
  10. Only an idiot attacks a lightsaber wielding force user head on, unless they too are a force using lightsaber wielder. You attack Jedi indirectly, and you never shoot a blaster at them. You attack their moral. You kill their friends. You sabotage their vehicles. You boobytrap the place they are going to. You use gas. You poison their food. You use environmental features. In short, you listen to this guy... 😉
  11. To be honest, I'd probably let him start with the Mandalorian Armour, regardless of cost and rarety. Soak 2 and Def. 1 is not gamebreaking IMO, even at starting point. Make a deal with him that the suit's damaged and requires X number of credits to fix. What's being fixed, is it's HP. So until the character has actually spent some in-game time to acquire the money he would have needed to buy the armour to begin with, he's stuck with the basic armour and no HP. The components he'll need to fix the armour will have the same Rarity as the armour would have had to begin with. The amount of money he'll have to spend to fix the armour, is the amount he hasn't spent buying the armour to begin with. You can argue that it's unfair to the other players, but you can fix that by throwing them a bone too at character creation. The reason I'd do it like this, is because A) I don't find it mechanically problematic, and B) it fits his character concept better than padded armour or some random vest or something. And it's not like he'll have full use of the armour, before getting it repaired. It just moves the cost of the armour from the creation point and into the game at some point. And worst case scenario, you can reduce the Defense or Soak too, if you find it problematic.
  12. Personally, I've always hated any and all restrictions that games put on the players character creation. I simply see no point to it. Some will argue that if you don't, people can min/max like crazy or start truely competent in a given field, and then have no way to grow the character. I personally call bull on that, because no character will be maxed out in all areas. True, people can min/max more with no constraints, but so what? I don't get my fun that way, but who am I to tell someone that they can't? And as for challenging a min/maxer, just force them to use a wide selection of skills and abilities. They'll then ace their specialties and mess up the rest. As for Star Wars, I personally find that two green dice tend to equal failure or just barely getting through. Hence getting extra dice from better stats is virtually a necessity. And given how hard it is to increase stats after game start, not improving the stats during creation is borderlining idiocy. But granted, my table doesn't min/max a lot, and given how little we play, getting anywhere witv XP purchases take irl time. However, each table to their own. The OP should do as he believes is right for his game.
  13. Personally I think I'd remove more than just the Inner Peace and Balance talents away, I'd probably remove Vaapad Control and one of the Parry too. Replacements: Additions: 1 Quick Strike, 2 Lethal Blows, 1 Embrace Your Hate, something new that is suitably deadly and worthy as a capstone talent. Don't have any good idea right now.
  14. I think that's actually only a partial truth. In the Phantom Menace, the Trade Federation's blockade of Naboo was actually founded in a "legitimate" trade dispute between Naboo and the Trade Federation, and if it wasn't for Palpatine, it would have stayed that way. The armed invasion of Naboo only happens because of Palpatine. I will, however, agree with you that the Clone War comes about due to the manipulations of Palpatine and possibly more so his master Darth Plagueis (check the book Darth Plagueis). The ultimate goal isn't to put Palpatine in power, but rather the same goal as had driven the Sith since the beginning, namely the destruction fo the Jedi order. Plunging the galaxy into a war between the Separatistes with their mechanized army, and the Republic, who actually didn't have an army (beyond whatever forces the individual member systems might have had for their own defense), was a ploy to get the Jedi out of their "comfort zone" as "monks", negotiators and peacekeepers, and into the role as generals and soldiers on the battlefield, using a conveniently provided Clone Army. A role that would cause large numbers of them to die over time, and eventually providing the chance to eliminate them alltoghether (Order 66).
  15. Religious texts are typically vague, contradictory and open to interpretation. Just take the Bible or the Koran (don't know if that's spelled right...). You have followers of both sets of scripture who with their respective religious text in hand will argue either for or against violence against other people in the same specific set of circumstances. And that's where culture and the teacher comes in. Now I'm tempted to say that Sith culture and teaching tradition is more responsible for the portrayed violence that's associated with the Sith, than the actual Sith Code itself. But as we don't actually have the "actual religious texts/holocrons" and teachers available to look at, that is likely to always be a matter of guesswork on our part. I don't disagree as such, and I don't really hold it agains the Jedi that they put little kids through "Jedi school", away from their parents. However, that point isn't my only reason for saying that I don't considder the Jedi to be infalible "white knights", but rather quite falible individuals who are members of an organization that is subject to hubris, bad judgement etc. Plus, I'll argue that when you use the Force to help ensure that you get the outcome you desire in a particular situation (not just in combat), I'd say that you are threading a morally questionable path, even if your intentions are good. To be honest, it's been too long since I've played any of the relevant games, or read any of the relevant EU books to be able to remember any examples either way, to be honest. But I'll agree that it's more probable that you will be sent to kill someone that's causing a problem by someone in the Sith society, than by someone in the Republic society. Agreed. In general I'm rarely a great fan of making comparisons between fictional organizations/societies and real world ones, except at the most abstract level. Interestingly enough I've never actually considdered the Star Wars Empire or Sith Empire to be comparable to Nazi Germany.
  • Create New...