Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
FFG_Sam Stewart

Beta Update 5

Recommended Posts

Players already had that option prior to the update via GM fiat.  This would be my preference.  That is all I am and have written about these past many posts.  Sigh.  Again, as a sidebar this matter could be easily resolved.  Something along the lines of...

 

Not enough munchkin for you or your players?

 

Consider offering the option to start at -21 Morality for those who favor the instant gratification microwave dinner of a Grand-Theft-Auto-execution-style ultraviolence or +21 Morality for the types who delight in Lawful Stupid paladin prudery to spice up your Star Wars power gaming!

 

 

Okay, maybe not that silly.

Edited by angelicdoctor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Players already had that option prior to the update via GM fiat.  This would be my preference.  That is all I am and have written about these past many posts.  Sigh.  Again, as a sidebar this matter could be easily resolved.  Something along the lines of...

 

Not enough munchkin for you or your players?

 

Consider offering the option to start at -21 Morality for those who favor the instant gratification microwave dinner of a Grand-Theft-Auto-execution-style ultraviolence or +21 Morality for the types who delight in Lawful Stupid paladin prudery to spice up your Star Wars power gaming!

 

 

Okay, maybe not that silly.

The problem with that is it limits players needlessly for no benefit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Players already had that option prior to the update via GM fiat.  This would be my preference.

 

Stormwind Fallacy: Just because "any good GM" can fix the rules by fiat, does not mean the rules dont need fixing. Better to have the -21 option written in the book for the people who want it, and the people who dont can start with extra stuff like Anakin did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And remember, only a Sith deals in absolutes.

 

3.  Only Sith deal in absolutes?  Is that an absolute statement?  Hey, Jagermeister!  There just might be a logical fallacy in this one for you to note to the general public.  I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'. ;)

Aye. It's about as relative as "everything is relative" ... which of course is also an absolute statement, hence not relative and therefore everything cannot be relative... :ph34r: or Language just isn't good enough ;) and everything is relative, although our only way to stating this supposed fact is by being absolute ... which goes to show how limited our language and understanding of the universe still is. :ph34r:

 

As for the Morality thing: since players (or most players perhaps) desire mechanical benefits in some way or another, +/-21 to Morality as a starting option makes a lot more sense than +/-20 - as the alternative is XP and or cash. It's pretty simple from a systemic point of view. I think, if there should be a sidebar, it should suggest opening up for adjusting Morality as the player sees fit up to +/-21, in case a player wants to be just on the edge of falling or becoming a paragon and is willing to take the xp/cash hit.

 

I mean, I could suggest a more drastic adjustment as a starting option, as the benefits/drawbacks from 71/29 isn't that super compared to starting cash or XP; not that those extra 10 XPs are that great in many cases, might as well go for the cash... so in this case one could, perhaps, argue for further adjustments to give those paragons and fallen some more bonuses.

 

I believe the current updated version is good enough though. It provides choice, choice that matters and will have an impact on the character and the group, more so than a 70/30 morality character will have before play starts - as in the destiny flip (dark siders)/destiny add (light siders).

 

And before the "narrative", "morality play", "whatnot" arguments about ROLEplaying and so on comes, sure, that's all well and good, but it's still a game, it's still reliant upon a system (in it's current form), players still play the system in addition to roleplaying the game and creating a story (these are not mutually exclusive categories!) Whether one takes a normative position in this for a focus on either or, it boils down to this: players and GMs will play the game, the system and roleplay as they see fit. Since this is a beta people will voice opinions, some will even offer well thought out arguments... and while it's difficult (probably impossible) to cater to everyone's desires and "needs," I think the game benefits from a balanced "yes, both" approach, rather than a dogmatic and more one sided approach. It provides more opportunities for various styles of play, but it won't bog the game down into a hype revolving around "narrative" or "tactics" or "system" or "mechanics" ... and so on ad nauseam.

 

The solution for starting Morality does, to me, do this. It provides mechanical benefits that makes other starting values than 50 viable, interesting and meaningful on a mechanical level also, not just on the roleplaying level. And that matters.

 

edit: glaring typos and crap writing

Edited by Jegergryte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I rather they not have the mod system at all and make all lightsabers do the same thing. The crystal thing is from a video game. Trying to make a lightsaber cost 500 credits is just silly. Either make it so the lightsaber comes with the career or make it so getting a true lightsaber is one of the extra options. A mercenary can get extra cash to get a high power blaster rifle. A lightsaber shouldn't be any different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I rather they not have the mod system at all and make all lightsabers do the same thing. The crystal thing is from a video game. Trying to make a lightsaber cost 500 credits is just silly. Either make it so the lightsaber comes with the career or make it so getting a true lightsaber is one of the extra options. A mercenary can get extra cash to get a high power blaster rifle. A lightsaber shouldn't be any different.

 

I both agree and disagree :)

 

The idea that a lightsaber is a commodity doesn't sit well with me. The discussion about acquiring a lightsaber always seems to lead to a discussion of credits. There seems to be a credit to experience equivalent that people have in their heads based off the starting character trade-off recommendations in the book.

 

Apparently, many people treat credits or equipment as an 'advancement' metric in their games. In any RPG I have ever participated with, wealth and gear is always separate from skill level. Maybe it is a dungeon crawl phenomenon. An entire EoTE game could be about being very capable but so broke you have to take odd jobs for less than desirable clients constantly. A Jedi centered game is unlikely to focus solely on credit acquisition.

 

I might be able to get on board with moving lightsaber acquisition from strictly narrative to some sort of experience point cost. But I don't think that is necessary. Find the crystal, find a mentor or some instructions, and build your lightsaber. F&D has an adventure idea that provides an example of one of many free ways to find your crystal. Mentors or holocrons are discussed as starting options. The rules now make it more likely you can construct the thing. What is missing?

 

There are no lighsaber stores or suppliers (unless you have a sideline hunting force users), so discussing lightsabers in terms of credits is a dead end to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The solution for starting Morality does, to me, do this. It provides mechanical benefits that makes other starting values than 50 viable, interesting and meaningful on a mechanical level also, not just on the roleplaying level. And that matters.

 

This is why I would not necessarily be opposed to a sidebar, optional approach.  Further, to satisfy your appetite for some instant pop tart mechanical benefit, I would not be opposed to maintaining the original mechanic of base 50 or +/- 20 Morality and combine it with one of the other benefits, +10XP, +2500 credits or +5XP and +1,000 credits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I rather they not have the mod system at all and make all lightsabers do the same thing. The crystal thing is from a video game. Trying to make a lightsaber cost 500 credits is just silly. Either make it so the lightsaber comes with the career or make it so getting a true lightsaber is one of the extra options. A mercenary can get extra cash to get a high power blaster rifle. A lightsaber shouldn't be any different.

 

What Aki said.  This is not a bad approach, the main caveat here is that F&D deals with PC's specifically being on the DL.  In an Old Republic or pre Order 66 game, where Jedi are still above-board, a standard saber might just come with the career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only issue here is that in this instance, sabers and rifles are the same... but then when people want to modify them it's all sabers are spiritual and special journey.

 

There is definite double standard stuff when it comes to jedi and sabers, people feel entitled to things that non-saber monkeys don't take for granted (aka mod-ing and improvements) and at the same time feel entitled to having their weapons like any old blaster. 

 

Mind you, I would live if the crystals were stripped of all mods and made as static equipment.  I couldn't really be bothered to care, and again in terms of game balance over all pretty minimal. But to say on one hand sabers are special and need special consideration, and on the otherhand sabers should be treated like every other blaster rifle... well, I disagree with that contradiction, not either thought in particular..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I didn't put my thoughts right to words. I feel like the reason the starting lightsaber was nerfed is so they would be balanced with the starting equipment of other characters. I don't really mean to speak about credits as something the character spends to get a lightsaber. I just mean that a Lightsaber isn't that much more powerful than a blaster rifle. One shouldn't need to make rolls to modify a Saber-for-baby to put it to what I feel is the normal version. If they don't want to just give one that powerful out to a starting character then make it one of the options you choose instead of 10 XP. which would be the same for a mercenary wanting a blaster rifle.

I definitely don't like having a nerfed version because of balance. I also don't like special crystals that when installed in the crystal slot of your lightsaber do extra damage to droids. It's a lightsaber. They come in 4 colors. Pick one...as long as it isn't purple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only issue here is that in this instance, sabers and rifles are the same... but then when people want to modify them it's all sabers are spiritual and special journey.

 

There is definite double standard stuff when it comes to jedi and sabers, people feel entitled to things that non-saber monkeys don't take for granted (aka mod-ing and improvements) and at the same time feel entitled to having their weapons like any old blaster. 

 

Mind you, I would live if the crystals were stripped of all mods and made as static equipment.  I couldn't really be bothered to care, and again in terms of game balance over all pretty minimal. But to say on one hand sabers are special and need special consideration, and on the otherhand sabers should be treated like every other blaster rifle... well, I disagree with that contradiction, not either thought in particular..

 

I don't think it's an issue of entitlement so much as an issue of lore-based expectations. 

 

And it's not really a double standard. It's seeing one thing (lightsabers in EotE) and thinking, "yeah that seems about right!" and then later seeing the actual math and thinking "Holy Yoda, who in the galaxy could perform those kind of modifications??" Then we are given solid rules for doing that thing, and suddenly it's "not fair to everyone else." 

 

Meanwhile, Joe the Bounty Hunter is going around with his Augmented Spin Barrel Heavy Blaster Rifle, which cost him a fraction of what it would take to get a lightsaber, doing a minimum of 12 damage per hit from Long Range, all the while using autofire. Four mechanics checks (Difficulties of 3, 4, 5, and 6) will increase the damage by a total of 2, grant him a boost die on every attack, and allow him to ignore a point of Soak (basically an extra point of damage on everything). Not too shabby. 

 

Sure, I understand, lightsabers have Breach. But you can't use them from cover at long range. And they do tend to attract the worst kind of trouble: bounty hunters looking to make a quick cred, ISB agents, Inquisitors, perhaps even Darth Vader himself. Not to mention there's a healthy bit of "focus your fire on the Jedi!" in most games I've played :) Wielding an obviously illegal, brightly-glowing weapon tends to paint a target of sorts.

 

So I ask, who are you going to fire on first: the Jedi charging down at you with a glowing lightsaber at short range, or the dude who you can kind of see behind those crates 200 feet away and is taking shots at you?

 

There are so many factors to consider, such that I think the "problem of fairness" is simply an issue of the rules being looked at in a vacuum (all by their lonesome) and people thinking, "Well gee that's not really fair. How come my gadgeteer can't have a spiritual connection to Vera?" 

 

And you know what? If a blaster really is that that special to a character, like Miillenium-Falcon-and-Han Solo-special, then yeah I could make some sort of exception. Donovan Morningfire made a good analogy a ways back about a Wookiee and his weaponry. Maybe a Ryyk blade or a bowcaster could carry that kind of significance to a character. I don't know if Chewbacca ever considered his bowcaster to be "his life," but there might be the odd Wookiee that forms that kind of connection to his homeworld's weapons.

 

But here, that is the standard with a Jedi's lightsaber. It is not the standard with any old blaster pistol or vibro-ax, personalized as they may be. 

 

So...in-universe considerations (IMO) should play a part in the rules, and should also be balanced. I think they are, when you get down to brass tacks and look at what each mod can do for a given weapon & attachment combo, and what it would cost, and what that would all look like in-game when you start rolling dice and adjudicating combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I didn't put my thoughts right to words. I feel like the reason the starting lightsaber was nerfed is so they would be balanced with the starting equipment of other characters. I don't really mean to speak about credits as something the character spends to get a lightsaber. I just mean that a Lightsaber isn't that much more powerful than a blaster rifle. One shouldn't need to make rolls to modify a Saber-for-baby to put it to what I feel is the normal version. If they don't want to just give one that powerful out to a starting character then make it one of the options you choose instead of 10 XP. which would be the same for a mercenary wanting a blaster rifle.

I definitely don't like having a nerfed version because of balance. I also don't like special crystals that when installed in the crystal slot of your lightsaber do extra damage to droids. It's a lightsaber. They come in 4 colors. Pick one...as long as it isn't purple.

 

Well...for one, "getting a lightsaber" has long been a part of the Jedi trials and sort of a personal journey. Granted, Luke was given his father's to start with, but he used it once and then his hand got lopped off :) Then he built his own. That could be an adventure in its own right, gaining the knowledge and materials (or even getting to the right place) to craft your own saber. 

 

And I can understand the dislike of "special crytals," but they are ingrained in the Star Wars mythos. It's something that a lot of players really like about lightsabers. So to each his own on that. If a player at my table has your kind of mentality, Zar, I would not have a problem with letting him find a saber from Edge of the Empire. At an additional cost, of course. It might come with a very big Obligation :)

 

But at the same time, I wouldn't begrudge a player for wanting to be an Artisan and having an orange lightsaber blade that does fire damage, or even a Shadow who wanted a "black" lightsaber blade or a silver one that pulsates loudly. If they think it's cool, and they will have a good time with it, then it's a possibility. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I didn't put my thoughts right to words. I feel like the reason the starting lightsaber was nerfed is so they would be balanced with the starting equipment of other characters. I don't really mean to speak about credits as something the character spends to get a lightsaber. I just mean that a Lightsaber isn't that much more powerful than a blaster rifle. One shouldn't need to make rolls to modify a Saber-for-baby to put it to what I feel is the normal version. If they don't want to just give one that powerful out to a starting character then make it one of the options you choose instead of 10 XP. which would be the same for a mercenary wanting a blaster rifle.

I definitely don't like having a nerfed version because of balance. I also don't like special crystals that when installed in the crystal slot of your lightsaber do extra damage to droids. It's a lightsaber. They come in 4 colors. Pick one...as long as it isn't purple.

That would be because FFG found in testing a starting character with a lightsaber really outshined everyone else. But after everyone got a bit of experience problem that went away. So they made it so that you cant afford to get a lightsaber with starting gear but showed by example that by the end of the first adventure you got your crystal to build your lightsaber. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not dismissing what you said away, as your points are valid, and my previous post wasn't directed at a rule change. The spotiness of the quote function interferes a lot here.

Why I was referring to was post 157 by zar. Specifically this, "A mercenary can get extra cash to get a high power blaster rifle. A lightsaber shouldn't be any different." This statement what I was referring to mostly, and that the sabers are either snow flake weapons (with special rules and appropriately rare) or they are not (in which case they don't get any special advantages because they have no special significance.

Again, I think only one person in this thread has said that they don't like/agree with/would house rule away the beta update for the crystals. I think that's great, elegant, and reflects the lore of the universe. It the personal part that seems a little cherry picked only for sabers, since that part is for the mechanical physical components, and the justification is DIY. Not spiritual specialness.

 

EDIT: and if we're looking at all out damage output, sabers will win, every time.  Balance hardly factors in. And that's ok, since sabers are strong.  Again, because it bears restating, I think sabers should be special, the most powerful weapons, and spiritual.  Just not to the detriment of variety, risk, and general character progression.  I think we can all agree with that, and so then it's a question of shades, of finding the middle ground. and really paying attention to the impact that any special force only rules have.  :)

Edited by Thebearisdriving

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The solution for starting Morality does, to me, do this. It provides mechanical benefits that makes other starting values than 50 viable, interesting and meaningful on a mechanical level also, not just on the roleplaying level. And that matters.

 

This is why I would not necessarily be opposed to a sidebar, optional approach.  Further, to satisfy your appetite for some instant pop tart mechanical benefit, I would not be opposed to maintaining the original mechanic of base 50 or +/- 20 Morality and combine it with one of the other benefits, +10XP, +2500 credits or +5XP and +1,000 credits.

 

It seems they tried that during the beta - read on Morality in the GM section, it refers to starting with lower morality providing XP or cash. They moved away from that, which makes sense, as going either dark or paragon provides its own set with bonuses. There's no reason going up or down on the Morality scale should provide extra xp or cash really, although here's an idea:

  • Starting Morality 50: choose 2500 credits OR 10 XP; or: 1000 credits and 5 XP
  • Starting Morality 30/70: choose between 1000 credits OR 5 XP. (I guess you could tie XP to 70 and cash to 30, or the other way around ... but meh)
  • Starting Morality 29/71: look up details for being consumed by the dark side, or being a paragon of light, these rules now apply to your character. No XP or credit boost.

Although starting with 70 or 30 Morality does nothing mechanical it does something on the story and character concept level, if you still get to choose something extra as with a Morality of 50 there's an incentive, but still no instant dark siders.

 

I added the 29/71 there because I really think that should be an option too, not just a house rules or sidebar really. It should be an option, and if the GM doesn't want to allow it: house-rule it ;)

 

 

The crystal thing is from a video game.

I believe lightsaber crystals first appeared in WEG's Tale of the Jedi Companion, not based on any computer game but a (rather crap) comic book series.

Edited by Jegergryte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice breakdown.  I would still be an advocate for the last option to be a sidebar thing at best, however.  Having been a Star Wars fan since the beginning, it seems more fitting to the spirit of the overall story to minimize this element.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have to disagree on the grounds that we're telling our own stories, not retelling Lucas' stories. What the "spirit" of Star Wars is depends on your point of view. The community is large and made up different people, therefore I think it's better in this case to cater to diversity rather than limitations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have to disagree on the grounds that we're telling our own stories, not retelling Lucas' stories. What the "spirit" of Star Wars is depends on your point of view. The community is large and made up different people, therefore I think it's better in this case to cater to diversity rather than limitations.

 

Well, I guess unless you live in a communist country, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion as am I regarding what the 'spirit' tells you.  Where you see limitations, I see opportunity.  Ah, well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, communist countries aren't that bad... we enjoy equality, prosperity, a good universal health care system second only to Cuba :ph34r: and stuff like that. ;) all at the small cost of so-called freedom of speech :ph34r:

 

Unless you can form your opinion into a coherent and good argument beyond "I'm entitled my opinion," then what use and value is there to it in this discussion? Stating ones opinion isn't discussing is it? I was under the impression that one should listen to and take aboard arguments from others too... is that wrong? Am I only supposed to repeat myself ad nauseam and hope that makes everyone fall into line?

 

You seem to ignore or you don't care that this game is for a large community with diverse people whose opinions on the "spirit" of what star wars is differs, which then makes it all the better that FFG is catering the larger community rather than a small purist (or fundamentalist?) minority. ;)

 

Sure, I can't claim the authority of having been a fan since day one, as I wasn't born yet, but so what? That's again not a legitimate argument, just a poor rhetorical strategy.

 

There is more opportunity in catering to diversity than not, that's a fact of life :ph34r: There are certainly opportunities in limiting Morality adjustments to only 70 and 30, but there's more opportunity by allowing 29 and 71 too. Having both as additional options to 50 creates even more opportunities and greater flexibility during character creation and at the start up of the game.

 

*Gotta run, secret police knocking on the door again!*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read your comments but remain unconvinced on one issue.  The discussion has caused me to make adjustments in my position, i.e. allowance for side bar, and I have been delighted by your last suggestion with one exception.  There.  Pat yourself on the back, commie.  ;)  You've made progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...