Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Scalding

Right vs. Wrong

Recommended Posts

I have been exceedingly busy as of late, and not around much on the boards or sending emails.  However, this subject is too important to leave unremarked.  For all our sakes, I will make this as brief as possible.

1) A player shall, at no time, feel that talent choices have permanently damaged their character. 
The degree of damage is irrelevant.  There should never be a case where the player regrets having bought any talent.  A talent may go unused; the penalty is little more than the loss of XP - this is recoverable.  However, this talent change causes a character to take conflict each time a game session begins, whether that talent is used or not. This is not recoverable, and a player who later regrets this decision will continue to suffer the penalty.
While in some game systems a ***-for-tat approach is common and even essential to gameplay, this is not that game.
2) Actions cause conflict, not attributes.
A Zabrak is fearsome; should they gain conflict each session as well?  Of course not.  The Terrify talent should not cause conflict if it is not used.  For a similar effect, the wording might be "The first time this talent is used in a session, the character gains 1 conflict," or alternatively, "The GM is encouraged to award conflict for the use of this talent."
3) Don't go looking for trouble.
"[T]his is a concept we want to explore in the future, and we want to start establishing it as a possibility now."
You (FFG Devs) appear to know the difference between right and wrong.  You know that this is wrong, but you want permission to do it or to do more things like it in the future.  In truth, you do not need permission, as you are the developer, but I will not assuage your conscious by passive approval.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I think many agree that the associated talent you are referring to and the addition of conflict isn't a beneficial change, I'd say the amount of conflict in play is miniscule. The d10 offsets it entirely unless the player performed other questionable actions. Also, it helps make real the inherent conflict of a Jedi's increasing power and the potential for misuse of power that Jedi faces.

I might also add that I think this helps open up the I think with the potential for talents that reduce conflict. With that in mind, these aren't so bad. Especially when there aren't any terrible penalties for flipping sides besides the change in force pool and the strain penalty, which arguably aren't big deals.

Edited by Atomisk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a similar effect, the wording might be "The first time this talent is used in a session, the character gains 1 conflict," or alternatively, "The GM is encouraged to award conflict for the use of this talent."

 

I'd recommend the wording: "The GM should carefully consider the circumstances of the action before giving conflict for use of this talent."

 

I find myself agreeing with you, Scalding. I don't think players should be punished for what talents they have, but for how they use their talents. Terrify is ripe for creating Conflict, but going by the chart in the book I can think of several instances where it not only shouldn't cause any conflict but is a good way to avoid open combat.

Edited by CaptainRaspberry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggested in the beta update, but I'll say it again here, the player should at the start of the session choose to gain the conflict and access to the talent, or not gain the conflict and be denied access.

 

This choice could come with strings, like spending a destiny point, or suffering a strain threshold reduction, but then at least the player has a choice in the matter.  their action determines the gain of conflict.  and this way a player can choose chapters later that if terrify doesn't suit their concept anymore, they can leave it behind, and then it is just wasted xp.

 

To be clear, i like the idea of these conflict generating talents, as it allows design space to create more powerful/interesting effects with a specific narrative bent.  but the players should have the ultimate say over their characters, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggested in the beta update, but I'll say it again here, the player should at the start of the session choose to gain the conflict and access to the talent, or not gain the conflict and be denied access.

 

My real problem with this is that you don't even have to use the talent to get Conflict. You just have to have it. Terrify is listed as Active, even, so it makes more sense to generate Conflict per use. If you want to auto-generate Conflict, Fearsome makes more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to auto-generate Conflict, Fearsome makes more sense.

 

...sssshhhh!

 

:)

 

I don't have a problem with the auto-conflict on Terrify, but I can see why it's irritating to some.

 

I think it might be helpful if FFG explained a little more about their rationale.  Just a guess on my part, but it looks like what they might be trying to enhance is the idea that your decisions live with you, and to bring that kind of long view into the story for both the players and GMs to leverage.

 

Even though I personally wouldn't mind, if that's what they're after, I think it's the wrong approach.  This approach forces the player and GM's hand.  It constrains players and GMs who aren't interested in that kind of long view.  It doesn't really do anything for players and GMs who do take a long view, because they'll do it anyway.  A "Conflict for Terrify usage" approach doesn't constrain anybody, but still has a mechanic for those who want it.

 

Or maybe they want to emphasize that some paths are more fraught with dark side temptation.  But I think a preponderance of Talents that cause Conflict on usage will accomplish that anyway.

 

Or maybe...I have no idea what they're after...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to auto-generate Conflict, Fearsome makes more sense.

 

I imagine the reasoning for why it was first attached to Terrify is because you're not just scaring the hell out of somebody, but you're also using the force (passively in that it's a Force Talent - actively in that you add your force rating to immobilize 1 or more of the affected targets). So the basic intent is probably to make it in the vein of Unleash or Harm, where you're channeling the force to bend the force into a negative force.

 

Although I must say that even using the force to - however you want to flavor it - make yourself look scarier, embed general feelings of dread into an opponents mind, bring up memories of how Vader just killed their friend 5 feet from them for failing, just start playing horror music in their minds, or whatever, is a bit of a stark contrast to sucking their life force out of their bodies or painfully electrocuting and burning them. Maybe it should just be changed to stuff like Influence where the immobilizing effect triggers only when using dark side points and just scrapping the auto-conflict altogether? I mean depending on how a player uses their Terrify, I'd likely toss a couple conflict at them anyways, so if they want to squeeze a bit more out of the talent, then they'd also suffer conflict from the use of dark side points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been exceedingly busy as of late, and not around much on the boards or sending emails.  However, this subject is too important to leave unremarked.  For all our sakes, I will make this as brief as possible.

1) A player shall, at no time, feel that talent choices have permanently damaged their character. 

The degree of damage is irrelevant.  There should never be a case where the player regrets having bought any talent.  A talent may go unused; the penalty is little more than the loss of XP - this is recoverable.  However, this talent change causes a character to take conflict each time a game session begins, whether that talent is used or not. This is not recoverable, and a player who later regrets this decision will continue to suffer the penalty.

While in some game systems a ***-for-tat approach is common and even essential to gameplay, this is not that game.

2) Actions cause conflict, not attributes.

A Zabrak is fearsome; should they gain conflict each session as well?  Of course not.  The Terrify talent should not cause conflict if it is not used.  For a similar effect, the wording might be "The first time this talent is used in a session, the character gains 1 conflict," or alternatively, "The GM is encouraged to award conflict for the use of this talent."

3) Don't go looking for trouble.

"[T]his is a concept we want to explore in the future, and we want to start establishing it as a possibility now."

You (FFG Devs) appear to know the difference between right and wrong.  You know that this is wrong, but you want permission to do it or to do more things like it in the future.  In truth, you do not need permission, as you are the developer, but I will not assuage your conscious by passive approval.

 

Oh, for f's sake.

Edited by progressions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, for f's sake.

Ah, such a poignant response. Obviously if progressions were to expound upon this statement they would say that this was all obvious and didn't need to be pointed out because clearly the devs will realize their error and will fix what was obviously just a very pink typo. There can be no other interpretation.

Edited by T3CHN0Shaman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people keep forgetting this is a Beta, they are the developers and in the final game the rulebook is a guideline, if a GM wishes to ignore those rules, they may. The point of a beta is to TEST things and see how it goes.

 

1 conflict per session...1...is barely anything for a lightside user and is a definite buff for a dark side user.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people keep forgetting this is a Beta, they are the developers and in the final game the rulebook is a guideline, if a GM wishes to ignore those rules, they may. The point of a beta is to TEST things and see how it goes.

 

1 conflict per session...1...is barely anything for a lightside user and is a definite buff for a dark side user.

 

It's not about the one conflict per session. Yeah it's minuscule in the scheme of things, but that's not the point. The point is what a mechanic like this represents and the overarching effects it has. It's one conflict now, but what if they start adding forced conflicts in other ways like adding it to more talents? Say they add conflict to reflect because you're basically forcing an attack back at the target, and that's an aggressive action. That's another 1 conflict. Say they add to fearsome, that's yet another. Next thing you know you're racking up all these automatic conflicts just for having talents. And worst, it's beyond your control. That's the problem.

Edited by DeepEyes357

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people keep forgetting this is a Beta, they are the developers and in the final game the rulebook is a guideline, if a GM wishes to ignore those rules, they may. The point of a beta is to TEST things and see how it goes.

 

1 conflict per session...1...is barely anything for a lightside user and is a definite buff for a dark side user.

 

No one's forgetting anything. It's a beta, and they expect feedback. This is our feedback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides that it's the stormwind fallacy, again, if we're designing games with the EXPECTATION that the GM is going to ignore the rules, why are we even designing games.

 

At some point we have to assume that the rules, in their totality are a baseline for what every table will be doing, and that they should function in an efficient, coherent, and thematic manner.  when one element sticks out as contrary to the theme, efficiency, or coherency of the rule set, that's a problem.

 

Of course GMs can change it, but wouldn't it be nice if they didn't have to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Next thing you know you're racking up all these automatic conflicts just for having talents. And worst, it's beyond your control. That's the problem.

 

It's not beyond your control, you went down the path and chose those things.  The greater difficulty for the game design would be if a character had so many of these auto-conflict Talents that redemption became mechanically impossible, or if redemption happened (killed the Emperor) it becomes impossible to sustain (you have to die now, or you'll certainly fall again).  So if FFG does go down this route they'll have to use it sparingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Oh, for f's sake.

Ah, such a poignant response. Obviously if progressions were to expound upon this statement they would say that this was all obvious and didn't need to be pointed out because clearly the devs will realize their error and will fix what was obviously just a very pink typo. There can be no other interpretation.

 

 

I think the rule's interesting and I don't have any problem with it. I just think the original poster's taking things a bit far with this "players rights' manifesto" or however you would describe that post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming we're talking about the "Fear" talents in the Warrior/Aggressor Tree...

 

My group kicked this around a bit and figured it out. The talent doesn't inherently give Conflict just because it causes fear-related effects. It only does it when the player using it is doing so in a way that fits the mold for darksideness (ie: coercion or threatening violence pg 220). While fear certainly can come from that sort of behavior, it's by no means mandatory.

 

If you're doing something you know is wrong, and a Jedi shows up asking about it, you're going to be afraid. Not because the Jedi made any threat of violence, but because you're now realizing that the "law" is on to you and there's a good chance you'll get caught. That's a fear effect that is pretty lightsidey.

 

Even more combat oriented talents like terrify can fall into a bit of a grey area. Making an action that proves your opponent is outgunned after they've already pretty much committed to the fight is a way to potentially end the fight without violence. Well within the same vein as lying to protect the innocent or stealing from the corrupt.

Edited by Ghostofman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the rule's interesting and I don't have any problem with it. I just think the original poster's taking things a bit far with this "players rights' manifesto" or however you would describe that post.

I would describe it as "clear but concise feedback".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kinda wish we had the internet in 1980 with AD&D:

 

'Elves can only reach level 5 in Fighter; discuss.'

 

*reads Lord of the Rings*

 

*ignores silly rule*

 

Maybe I'm old, but back then, when gamers saw a stupid rule, they just ignored it. As I shall do with this piece of silliness.  

 

Problem with this is that FFG seem to be infatuated with it, and it will set the precedent for more nonsense to come.  Shame. They've been pretty good up to now. 

Edited by Maelora

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We didn't need the Internet back in the 80s to play our games the way we wanted as you have effectively communicated though perhaps not with the purpose you imagined.  We certainly didn't bicker about rules with people we hardly knew or will ever know.  If we did discuss rules, it was with our local friends around a gaming table.  A friendly consensus was usually arrived at and the game happily continued.  I miss those days almost enough to become a quasi-Luddite and reject Al Gore's invention.  ;)

Edited by angelicdoctor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We didn't need the Internet back in the 80s to play our games the way we wanted as you have effectively communicated though perhaps not with the purpose you imagined.  We certainly didn't bicker about rules with people we hardly knew or will ever know.  If we did discuss rules, it was with our local friends around a gaming table.  A friendly consensus was usually arrived at and the game happily continued.  I miss those days almost enough to become a quasi-Luddite and reject Al Gore's invention.  ;)

 

"How old are you?"

 

"Twenty."

 

"When I was your age, I was thirty!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We didn't need the Internet back in the 80s to play our games the way we wanted as you have effectively communicated though perhaps not with the purpose you imagined.  We certainly didn't bicker about rules with people we hardly knew or will ever know.  If we did discuss rules, it was with our local friends around a gaming table.  A friendly consensus was usually arrived at and the game happily continued.  I miss those days almost enough to become a quasi-Luddite and reject Al Gore's invention.  ;)

 

"How old are you?"

 

"Twenty."

 

"When I was your age, I was thirty!"

 

 

When I first started role-playing, Star Wars wasn't even a gleam in West End Games' eyes.

Edited by angelicdoctor

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...