Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
FFG_Sam Stewart

Beta Update 7

Recommended Posts

 

Yeah - if you have the character concept of moving from the dark side to the light I can see where some players would be frustrated because this change seems to stand in the way.

 

I have the opposite reaction to frustration, this totally fits a character I want to run, and I liked the idea that if I took Terrify it would mean he would have to work harder *forever* to redeem himself and stay that way.

 

 

Exactly.  This makes the journey that much more interesting and meaningful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

"This talent is taking away from player agency"

 

I disagree.  The player knows ahead of time the consequence of choosing this talent.  He or she can easily enough avoid taking the talent.

 

More likely, not take the spec.

 

The main problem I have is not the "loss of agency", but that you're losing Morality for things that don't happen "on screen."  They violate one of the most important rules of fiction: show, don't tell.  And one of the main dramatic focal points has been reduced to dirt.  Remember, there is more of this to come in future splatbooks, promising to suck all the drama off the table with passive-aggressive "darksiders" who just look evil but, in fact, don't need to act very evil to get their grimdark on.  It's a very passive and cowardly trend, afaict...

 

 

Narratively you're gaining Conflict because of choices you have made.  And you don't necessarily lose Morality - most likely you'll just gain 1 less as your previous choices and the hold the dark side has on you slows up your journey a bit.

 

Character builds are not choices that PC's make; they're choices players make.  Character builds don't happen in the fiction per se.  This is like writing "Evil" on your character sheet next to "alignment". Meanwhile, the PC goes about the goody-two-shoes business and is de facto good.  It's one of the worst aspects of roleplaying:  not roleplaying.

 

Further, every point of conflict is a lost point of Morality on a one-for-one basis.  D10 = Morality gained.  Conflict = Morality lost.  Yes, they resolve simultaneously.  Also, your bank credits your deposits before cashing your checks at the end of the day to prevent overdraft.  The math is tautological, and no one's debating how it works.  The "you won't go Dark because of this alone!" argument is just a straw man that needs to be ejected from the room, preferably from a torpedo tube. More is to come from splatbooks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

"This talent is taking away from player agency"

 

I disagree.  The player knows ahead of time the consequence of choosing this talent.  He or she can easily enough avoid taking the talent.

 

More likely, not take the spec.

 

The main problem I have is not the "loss of agency", but that you're losing Morality for things that don't happen "on screen."  They violate one of the most important rules of fiction: show, don't tell.  And one of the main dramatic focal points has been reduced to dirt.  Remember, there is more of this to come in future splatbooks, promising to suck all the drama off the table with passive-aggressive "darksiders" who just look evil but, in fact, don't need to act very evil to get their grimdark on.  It's a very passive and cowardly trend, afaict...

 

 

Narratively you're gaining Conflict because of choices you have made.  And you don't necessarily lose Morality - most likely you'll just gain 1 less as your previous choices and the hold the dark side has on you slows up your journey a bit.

 

Character builds are not choices that PC's make; they're choices players make.  Character builds don't happen in the fiction per se.  This is like writing "Evil" on your character sheet next to "alignment". Meanwhile, the PC goes about the goody-two-shoes business and is de facto good.  It's one of the worst aspects of roleplaying:  not roleplaying.

 

Further, every point of conflict is a lost point of Morality on a one-for-one basis.  D10 = Morality gained.  Conflict = Morality lost.  Yes, they resolve simultaneously.  Also, your bank credits your deposits before cashing your checks at the end of the day to prevent overdraft.  The math is tautological, and no one's debating how it works.  The "you won't go Dark because of this alone!" argument is just a straw man that needs to be ejected from the room, preferably from a torpedo tube. More is to come from splatbooks.

 

 

 

This comment is so delicious it has to be fattening. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: Actually, the ability lightside would be too weak. I would say change the talent to be Terrify/Awe. Lightside pips used to activate the secondary power will give setback dice for each point used to everyone affected in the area. Darkside pips make them immobilized. That way you can get variable conflict for using the ability.

 

Just to be Sith's Advocate... :)  I would call "Awe" a dark side power as well.  Such a thing is diametrically opposed to the Jedi/light side principles of humility and service.  When you think of paragons of "good", like Gandalf, their role was nurturing, the reduction of fear, strengthening of the heart, etc. and very much under the radar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Edit: Actually, the ability lightside would be too weak. I would say change the talent to be Terrify/Awe. Lightside pips used to activate the secondary power will give setback dice for each point used to everyone affected in the area. Darkside pips make them immobilized. That way you can get variable conflict for using the ability.

 

Just to be Sith's Advocate... :)  I would call "Awe" a dark side power as well.  Such a thing is diametrically opposed to the Jedi/light side principles of humility and service.  When you think of paragons of "good", like Gandalf, their role was nurturing, the reduction of fear, strengthening of the heart, etc. and very much under the radar.

 

 

I wouldn't call Gandalf, or Yoda for that matter under the radar. Speaking of which, didn't Gandalf do that room darkening, voice modulating, power thing to intimidate and make everyone pay attention to him so he could end arguing get his point across? 

 

Point being a power like "Awe" could just be a force of presence that influences people. Like a celebrity or someone of weight walking into a room. The power itself isnt inherently evil.

 

Edit: And to add, Jedi use the force to Jedi Mind Trick and Influence people all the time. Usually to avoid conflict(fighting) or for a greater good. Are we going to give them automatic Conflict just for having that force power? I mean it's essentially taking away from a person's free will. That's a pretty potent and dangerous ability, right? 

Edited by DeepEyes357

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This comment is so delicious it has to be fattening. 

 

All you have to do is "Like" the post, otherwise it just adds to the clutter.

 

 

I know, but an attempt at humor now and then wouldn't hurt anyone.  ;)

 

Do I get automatic conflict for that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like the change.

If I learn how to kill someone does that give me conflict every day even if I never actually do it? I see what FFG are going for, but it feels weird. Morality is all about role playing right? It's up to the player and what they choose to do in character, but this is just unlocking an ability.

If the player takes the talent early on and months later still never uses it they're still getting conflict for it, that just feels odd to me. I can see it causing frustration and regret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

"This talent is taking away from player agency"

 

I disagree.  The player knows ahead of time the consequence of choosing this talent.  He or she can easily enough avoid taking the talent.

 

More likely, not take the spec.

 

The main problem I have is not the "loss of agency", but that you're losing Morality for things that don't happen "on screen."  They violate one of the most important rules of fiction: show, don't tell.  And one of the main dramatic focal points has been reduced to dirt.  Remember, there is more of this to come in future splatbooks, promising to suck all the drama off the table with passive-aggressive "darksiders" who just look evil but, in fact, don't need to act very evil to get their grimdark on.  It's a very passive and cowardly trend, afaict...

 

 

Narratively you're gaining Conflict because of choices you have made.  And you don't necessarily lose Morality - most likely you'll just gain 1 less as your previous choices and the hold the dark side has on you slows up your journey a bit.

 

Character builds are not choices that PC's make; they're choices players make.  Character builds don't happen in the fiction per se.  This is like writing "Evil" on your character sheet next to "alignment". Meanwhile, the PC goes about the goody-two-shoes business and is de facto good.  It's one of the worst aspects of roleplaying:  not roleplaying.

 

Further, every point of conflict is a lost point of Morality on a one-for-one basis.  D10 = Morality gained.  Conflict = Morality lost.  Yes, they resolve simultaneously.  Also, your bank credits your deposits before cashing your checks at the end of the day to prevent overdraft.  The math is tautological, and no one's debating how it works.  The "you won't go Dark because of this alone!" argument is just a straw man that needs to be ejected from the room, preferably from a torpedo tube. More is to come from splatbooks.

 

 

Character builds ARE choices that PC's make.  They play a very large role in defining the character.  Every single little build choice might not be but most of them are.  Which skills you have ranks in, the Career/Specs you choose and the Talents you take for the most part define the character and are driven by the character concept and character arc.  Certainly there are many aspects to the character that aren't modeled by the mechanics but most mechanics do model aspects of the character.  Your Career represents what your character has spent most of their time doing and even what things they value in life.

There's a bunch of fluff text in each career/spec section for a reason.

 

 I don't deny that this slows down a move to the light side: in fact I consider this to be part of the appeal as I think it does a good job of injecting an interesting dynamic into the character and the nature of the Dark Side.

 

I'm not sure what the point of your example is.  Bad roleplaying is bad roleplaying.  There are many ways players can not roleplay their characters "as written".  Players can ignore their emotional Strengths and Weaknesses (though there is some mechanics there to encourage players to play up their Strengths/Weaknesses).  I don't see how Terrify and gaining 1 Conflict is related except that it keeps your character more "honest" by bringing mechanical support to a character decision (tapping into/training in the Dark Side).  In this case writing "evil" on your character sheet (by training in Terrify) does have an effect in game.

 

If you don't see any narrative opportunities with Terrify and gaining 1 Conflict (or future mechanics that use the same idea) then just house rule it out of your game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like the change.

If I learn how to kill someone does that give me conflict every day even if I never actually do it? I see what FFG are going for, but it feels weird. Morality is all about role playing right? It's up to the player and what they choose to do in character, but this is just unlocking an ability.

If the player takes the talent early on and months later still never uses it they're still getting conflict for it, that just feels odd to me. I can see it causing frustration and regret.

 

And for some of us this encapsulates very well the dangers of the Dark Side.  It's not just unlocking an ability - it's learning how to use the force to fill someone with terror.  That's not learning how to draw your weapon more quickly or attack more efficiently.  It's a definitive move towards embracing the Dark Side and learning how to do dark things with it.

 

As for players regretting it and being frustrated by it...either the player's character is designed to be indifferent or opposed to the light side in which case the 1 Conflict is no big deal as it either pushes your character the direction you want to go (or affects you in a way not particularly relevant to your character concept) OR the player's character is trying to be a paragon of the light side who chose to specialize in Aggressor which very likely means they are playing a redemption arc in which case there is narrative utility to the 1 Conflict gained.  Turning away from the Dark Side shouldn't be easy and turning to it has lasting consequences and the Morality mechanic in general does a good job with this but this is one more narrative tool that helps out with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of which, didn't Gandalf do that room darkening, voice modulating, power thing to intimidate and make everyone pay attention to him so he could end arguing get his point across? 

 

Maybe Gandalf wasn't the best example, he wasn't constrained by concepts central to the character of the Force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like the sticking point is about what is a character choice and what isn't.

 

I see that training in Terrify is a character choice.  You're learning how to use the Dark Side.  This isn't just some mechanical tweak it's moving towards the Dark Side - it's in a specialization that's all about that.

 

Another sticking point seems to be gaining Conflict when you may not have DONE anything in a particular session.  Which is a fair complaint but I like that choosing the Dark Side (by training in Terrify) has lasting consequences.  You've learned and practiced how to tap into the dark side and fill another being with terror.  And even just the training in that gives the Dark Side a hook into you, the temptation to use it, to draw even further on the Dark Side.  I think the Conflict represents NOT what you've necessarily done but well...the conflict within you as you struggle with the pull the Dark Side has on you.  It's like being an alcoholic - just because you haven't had a drink for a year doesn't mean that you don't feel conflict and stress within yourself to drink.

 

I also think a GM/player could very well decide that at a certain point the character has fully thrown of the influence of the Dark Side and the Terrify Talent is "unlearned".  That would make for a cool character journey made even more meaningful (just a little) because now you're not gaining that 1 Conflict every session.

 

A player dedicating his character to turning to the light can do so fairly quickly ("I decided to turn away from the dark side like 5 sessions ago - that's ancient history") and I think that Terrify leaves some lingering consequences there that is true to Yoda's admonition to Luke.

 

But to each there own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Character builds ARE choices that PC's make.  

 

Really?  What is the sound of 10XP buying a talent?  What does that look like?  What is the scene of a PC gaining Conlict per adventure due to a character build alone?

 

Again, I return to my suggestion of gaining 1 Conflict for the session if you actually use the talent.

 

The point is that prior to this update, Morality has been all about capturing what happens in the story.  But there's no story here.  It's being repurposed.  Maybe we'll have +1 Conflict per session for wearing black -- don't laugh, at least we can see that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saying, the concept of falling to the dark side and it dominating your path is already embedded in Morality through the way that you can't be redeemed until you get back up to 70 Morality points - and until then, the player still has Dark Side points as their Destiny Point-less source of Force power, one less starting light side Destiny Point to fuel light side point use, and if they're far down enough, less strain for converting light points into something usable.

 

Odds are already stacked pretty high against players that've fallen, not sure it's necessary for there to auto-conflict from a talent that might not even be used in the session (or what would be more talents later on) to downright make it near impossible.

Edited by Lathrop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Character builds ARE choices that PC's make.  

 

Really?  What is the sound of 10XP buying a talent?  What does that look like?  What is the scene of a PC gaining Conlict per adventure due to a character build alone?

 

Again, I return to my suggestion of gaining 1 Conflict for the session if you actually use the talent.

 

The point is that prior to this update, Morality has been all about capturing what happens in the story.  But there's no story here.  It's being repurposed.  Maybe we'll have +1 Conflict per session for wearing black -- don't laugh, at least we can see that...

 

 

What does that look like?  Your character wakes up one morning and somehow knows how to fill people with terror?

This sort of thing plays out differently at different tables (or different sessions at the same table for a lot of reasons) but players aren't obligated to explain how they acquire new Talents even when these Talents represent a completely new ability to do something like Terrify.  But that doesn't mean it isn't a character decision or that it doesn't beg for a story/narrative explanation like what is typically done for advancement in say Lightsaber skill or Talents ("I"m training with my lightsaber during down time...").  

And there's lots of story in there if players want it.  How is it exactly you gained the ability of Terrify?  Maybe it's back story.  But it's story.  

 

And what's the story in gaining Conflict every session for it whether you use it or not?  I don't know how better I can say it (not that you have to agree with me) but when you trained in Terrify you started walking down the dark path and that has lasting consequences.  The dark side tempts you stronger.  That ability you have tempts you to use it.  The conflict within you is always there to use the dark side because you've tasted it's power!  And that 1 Conflict each session reminds you of this struggle and gives you something to overcome (or go along with or ignore).

 

Maybe you don't like this story element or maybe it feels forced to you or whatever but it does have narrative utility.

Part of the story and the setting is that the dark side doesn't let go of you.

Edited by Jedi Ronin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saying, the concept of falling to the dark side and it dominating your path is already embedded in Morality through the way that you can't be redeemed until you get back up to 70 Morality points - and until then, the player still has Dark Side points as their Destiny Point-less source of Force power, one less starting light side Destiny Point to fuel light side point use, and if they're far down enough, less strain for converting light points into something usable.

 

Odds are already stacked pretty high against players that've fallen, not sure it's necessary for there to auto-conflict from a talent that might not even be used in the session (or what would be more talents later on) to downright make it near impossible.

 

I doubt FFG will make it impossible to turn away from the Dark Side as the redemption arc is explicitly supported in the mechanics.

 

This does make it more difficult to be redeemed.  So if you think it's already too difficult (or just right) then I can see where you'd find this is just too much.  

 

But I don't see gaining one less Morality per session as that big of a deal.  It's a very minor slow down.  A Morality roll of 5.5 is average so if you don't have Terrify and you don't gain any Conflict during play you're looking at 9 sessions to go from say 20 Morality to 70.  With Terrify that's 11 sessions.  If you have a GM who's doing their job and using emotional Strengths/Weaknesses triggers and the player is really pushing the redemption story then they're going to have a session or two in there where they double their Morality gain.  So, to me at least, it seems like the 1 Conflict per session is a very very minor slow down that can be completely negated and overcome with a session or two of your emotions triggering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like the sticking point is about what is a character choice and what isn't.

 

I see that training in Terrify is a character choice.  You're learning how to use the Dark Side.  This isn't just some mechanical tweak it's moving towards the Dark Side - it's in a specialization that's all about that.

 

Another sticking point seems to be gaining Conflict when you may not have DONE anything in a particular session.  Which is a fair complaint but I like that choosing the Dark Side (by training in Terrify) has lasting consequences.  You've learned and practiced how to tap into the dark side and fill another being with terror.  And even just the training in that gives the Dark Side a hook into you, the temptation to use it, to draw even further on the Dark Side.  I think the Conflict represents NOT what you've necessarily done but well...the conflict within you as you struggle with the pull the Dark Side has on you.  It's like being an alcoholic - just because you haven't had a drink for a year doesn't mean that you don't feel conflict and stress within yourself to drink.

 

I also think a GM/player could very well decide that at a certain point the character has fully thrown of the influence of the Dark Side and the Terrify Talent is "unlearned".  That would make for a cool character journey made even more meaningful (just a little) because now you're not gaining that 1 Conflict every session.

 

A player dedicating his character to turning to the light can do so fairly quickly ("I decided to turn away from the dark side like 5 sessions ago - that's ancient history") and I think that Terrify leaves some lingering consequences there that is true to Yoda's admonition to Luke.

 

But to each there own.

 

 

This is the more simplistic argument out of the myriad associated with what's wrong with the talent. But I'll focus on the point here in that what makes "Terrify" a darkside power other than it's name? There is no fluff in the talent description to indicate that it's a dark side ability; certainly, no indication that a character is using "fear" to induce this effect. Essentially it's an activated force aura, and besides the name, there really is no "darkside flavor" to it. 

 

Like I've mentioned on this forum, why couldn't you call it "Awe" and let it be a lightside power? What about calling it "Force Presence"/"Force Aura"/"Stupifey"/Whatever? 

 

The name would make it sound like a more neutral power, and then none of us would be the wiser. Like I said, what about Influence? Jedi Mind Tricks are used to subvert a persons free will. That's a pretty messed up thing to do. Should everyone start gaining an automatic conflict each session just to know how to use that ability? 

 

Training in it may be a choice, but using it or not using is the more important choice. I'm not saying the power shouldn't generate conflict, I'm saying it shouldn't just be an automatic. Same as a lot of the other powers aren't an automatic Conflict giving mechanic. 

 

If you want it to give a guaranteed conflict, then the talent should work as a dual talent like the force powers are, and have separate consequences based on how it's used. A lightside ability and a darkside ability. That way there is less moral ambiguity, you know what you're getting, and you can use it for the full dark side effect should the player so choose. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It seems like the sticking point is about what is a character choice and what isn't.

 

I see that training in Terrify is a character choice.  You're learning how to use the Dark Side.  This isn't just some mechanical tweak it's moving towards the Dark Side - it's in a specialization that's all about that.

 

Another sticking point seems to be gaining Conflict when you may not have DONE anything in a particular session.  Which is a fair complaint but I like that choosing the Dark Side (by training in Terrify) has lasting consequences.  You've learned and practiced how to tap into the dark side and fill another being with terror.  And even just the training in that gives the Dark Side a hook into you, the temptation to use it, to draw even further on the Dark Side.  I think the Conflict represents NOT what you've necessarily done but well...the conflict within you as you struggle with the pull the Dark Side has on you.  It's like being an alcoholic - just because you haven't had a drink for a year doesn't mean that you don't feel conflict and stress within yourself to drink.

 

I also think a GM/player could very well decide that at a certain point the character has fully thrown of the influence of the Dark Side and the Terrify Talent is "unlearned".  That would make for a cool character journey made even more meaningful (just a little) because now you're not gaining that 1 Conflict every session.

 

A player dedicating his character to turning to the light can do so fairly quickly ("I decided to turn away from the dark side like 5 sessions ago - that's ancient history") and I think that Terrify leaves some lingering consequences there that is true to Yoda's admonition to Luke.

 

But to each there own.

 

 

This is the more simplistic argument out of the myriad associated with what's wrong with the talent. But I'll focus on the point here in that what makes "Terrify" a darkside power other than it's name? There is no fluff in the talent description to indicate that it's a dark side ability; certainly, no indication that a character is using "fear" to induce this effect. Essentially it's an activated force aura, and besides the name, there really is no "darkside flavor" to it. 

 

Like I've mentioned on this forum, why couldn't you call it "Awe" and let it be a lightside power? What about calling it "Force Presence"/"Force Aura"/"Stupifey"/Whatever? 

 

The name would make it sound like a more neutral power, and then none of us would be the wiser. Like I said, what about Influence? Jedi Mind Tricks are used to subvert a persons free will. That's a pretty messed up thing to do. Should everyone start gaining an automatic conflict each session just to know how to use that ability? 

 

Training in it may be a choice, but using it or not using is the more important choice. I'm not saying the power shouldn't generate conflict, I'm saying it shouldn't just be an automatic. Same as a lot of the other powers aren't an automatic Conflict giving mechanic. 

 

If you want it to give a guaranteed conflict, then the talent should work as a dual talent like the force powers are, and have separate consequences based on how it's used. A lightside ability and a darkside ability. That way there is less moral ambiguity, you know what you're getting, and you can use it for the full dark side effect should the player so choose. 

 

 

Except the developers clearly think Terrify is a Dark Side ability.  That's why they named it Terrify and decided to tack on gaining 1 Conflict.

The Aggressor specialization specifically says they rely on fear to intimidate.

 

I agree that looking at the mechanical effects out of context of the name of the Talent or the specialization it's in it's not inherently dark side - it could even be used to implement Malacia or Morichro.

 

I also agree that choosing to use Terrify is the more important choice but that doesn't mean that training in it in the first place wasn't a decision with consequences.  I think it does a good job of modelling the hold the dark side has on your thoughts and inclinations and emotions and adds a useful narrative tool in that regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does that look like?  Your character wakes up one morning and somehow knows how to fill people with terror?

This sort of thing plays out differently at different tables (or different sessions at the same table for a lot of reasons) but players aren't obligated to explain how they acquire new Talents even when these Talents represent a completely new ability to do something like Terrify.

 

And that is exactly my point -- there's no scene there, no story.  Players are not obligated to submit their training montages into the fiction, but prior to this update, they were obligated to introduce into the fiction that which affects their Morality.  Loading up on enough of the right talents is boring and lazy.  "Building" dark side characters is boring and lazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, characters in this universe that embrace the Dark Side generally suffer from physical, mental, and spiritual "corruption". The longer they embrace that side the worse these effects usually become. All we're discussing here is a way to mechanically reflect that in a way that still supports the story. Perhaps this Terrify business as currently presented isn't ultimately the way to do that. If that's the case then what mechanic would? Something similar to the Insanity mechanic from WFRP? I don't know. The main thought though, is that I don't need to keep buying an endless tsunami of hardcover books to roleplay the situation. It seems clear that the writers are attempting to put some teeth into the system to support the marketing layout of the line. I feel like that's a good thing. Otherwise let's just play Dungeon World with lightsabers and call it a day, eh? :)

 

For folks who don't like Terrify in it's current state, or to zoom out a bit...talents being heavy handed in this arena...., what kind of mechanics would reinforce and reflect the Dark Side in a way that would reinforce your narrative?

Edited by GMmL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still support Terrify as written since this last update, but I definitely see the argument others have against it. One possible compromise would be only having the  auto +1 conflict if the PC is not a lightside paragon.

 

I think the reason why they didn't do a conflict penalty for every use is because for most instances, using the force to instill fear and put an opponent off guard should already be generating conflict based on the chart in the book. So if a group was using my compromise, the lightside paragon would still be generating conflict but only when using it. So if a Force user continues to use terrify and begins to fall, once they dip below 71, the fall becomes that much quicker.

 

 

This could model Mace Windu et al fairly effectively.

Edited by kaosoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For folks who don't like Terrify in it's current state, or to zoom out a bit...talents being heavy handed in this arena...., what kind of mechanics would reinforce and reflect the Dark Side in a way that would reinforce your narrative?

 

Even though I'm the camp that likes the auto-conflict, I think the "conflict on usage" is a reasonable compromise.  In addition, they could flag certain Talents as "dark side" and give the GM the option to impose auto-conflict on PCs that have chosen them.  That way it leaves the decision to the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Except the developers clearly think Terrify is a Dark Side ability.  That's why they named it Terrify and decided to tack on gaining 1 Conflict.

The Aggressor specialization specifically says they rely on fear to intimidate.

 

I agree that looking at the mechanical effects out of context of the name of the Talent or the specialization it's in it's not inherently dark side - it could even be used to implement Malacia or Morichro.

 

I also agree that choosing to use Terrify is the more important choice but that doesn't mean that training in it in the first place wasn't a decision with consequences.  I think it does a good job of modelling the hold the dark side has on your thoughts and inclinations and emotions and adds a useful narrative tool in that regard.

 

The description also says "Some Aggressors hope their enemies backdown without a fight, but others fall into the trap of relishing the fear they inspire."

 

Seems to indicate a choice of actions to me. They use their ability to try and make people back down, much like the arguments and examples I gave earlier about Yoda, and others use it purposefully for intimidation and fear.

 

If you want to go with the idea of the "hold the dark side has on your thoughts and inclinations..." then do it narratively as part of roleplay with the players. Not as a forced mechanic. Which to tie in with GMml's question:

 

 

 

For folks who don't like Terrify in it's current state, or to zoom out a bit...talents being heavy handed in this arena...., what kind of mechanics would reinforce and reflect the Dark Side in a way that would reinforce your narrative and give you control or the illusion of control over your build choices?

 

Use the already established mechanics RAW for morality? If my player is going to use Terrify for the specific purpose of combating someone by using their fear to subdue them, then I'm going to give them conflict and that's that. This will have been worked out beforehand between me and my players. For example: A player force user runs with a smuggling crew doing smuggling runs and participating in backroom deals. They are at a meeting where they exchange a stolen crate of military gear for credits. The meeting then turns sour and the opposing party tries to play the group for fools. The force user refuses to let this fly and forces an attack, deciding to employ Terrify in order to have the upper hand and intimidate. I'm so going to give him conflict for that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What does that look like?  Your character wakes up one morning and somehow knows how to fill people with terror?

This sort of thing plays out differently at different tables (or different sessions at the same table for a lot of reasons) but players aren't obligated to explain how they acquire new Talents even when these Talents represent a completely new ability to do something like Terrify.

 

And that is exactly my point -- there's no scene there, no story.  Players are not obligated to submit their training montages into the fiction, but prior to this update, they were obligated to introduce into the fiction that which affects their Morality.  Loading up on enough of the right talents is boring and lazy.  "Building" dark side characters is boring and lazy.

 

 

If you're determined not to bring it into the story - or how you play the character or experience playing the character - that's fine.

It doesn't mean it doesn't provide some utility for other players to do so.

 

Why does gaining Conflict absolutely have to be tied to a scene happening right now in the story?

 

Why can't past choices have lingering consequences even if subtle and even if they don't explicitly appear in a scene?

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...