Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Scalding

Right vs. Wrong

Recommended Posts

The way my group and I interpret the terrify talent is the same as if the character had used coercion.  Its a physical treat initiated my the force.  In our opinion, the 1 conflict fits this talent.  One of my players made the statement, "If the player didn't want to ride the rails of the darkside, he wouldn't take that specialization to begin with, much less this talent, which the name even implies darkside."  We as a group agree with the ruling and will be testing it over the next week.  If having the talent generate 1 conflict really bugs you and/or your player that much, just refund the xp to buy into something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Danudet. The spec suggests dark side force user as does the talent itself. Someone who is a light side user would not have to rely on terrifying an opponent and causing them fear in order to persuade them to do what they need to. While I accept the idea of saying 'You broke the law, we will turn you in.' that I feel comes down in the area of potential blackmail plus a Force user would not need to use the force to reinforce this idea...it's the **** law they are quoting!

 

Since the Jedi way does not condone emotions and using fear, I see no problem with the Terrify talent giving you one conflict, hell the talent doesn't even 'block' you should you opt not to take it since Dedication and Force rating is in an entirely different column. Hell if you wanted to go with the fluff you could have caused Dedication to be accessible from the 'Terrify route' as a quick opinion and have the other route be a long and expensive one to reflect the idea of 'the quick and easy path'. I also agree about the idea of having the talent and being penalised for its existence and not it's use. You take the choice to buy the talent, to buy into the corruption, granted this is a change to the status quo however any future purchases of the talent will see it written down there in black and white, knowing that it will give you a conflict per session. If you want to buy into it, it is your responsibility to do so. You don't buy a blaster with the intent to never have to shoot it, if that were the case and you could say with certainly that you can avoid conflict 100% of the time, then there's no point to own one. If you intend to use the talent, by all means buy it, but be prepared for the consequences.

 

If you don't want the conflict penalty, don't buy that talent and don't expect to be able to use it, the very idea a force tree would not penalise you for having something inherently darkside in its ability frankly boggled me. However people were too busy criticising the morality system and coming up with their own half cocked ideas to consider such a thing. Does it set a precedent? Yes it does, it opens the doors for other talents to either add or subtract conflict which is an interesting mechanic. I would rather see the entire concept played out rather than have it removed and criticised before it is even tested by the community!

 

Does it have flaws? Maybe, as pointed out it seems a very vocal minority is unhappy with the morality system, however it seems it is here to stay and my own opinion is that it fits within the system and feel of the game and is random enough to not have players purposely skirting the edge of being dark without going dark to say "I'm a dark sider" without getting any of the penalties that come with it.

 

I knew F&D was going to be the most controversial game in the system, however it's getting to a point where vocal minorities are screaming over tiny little things that haven't even been fully realised and finished testing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew F&D was going to be the most controversial game in the system, however it's getting to a point where vocal minorities are screaming over tiny little things that haven't even been fully realised and finished testing.

A vocal minority is not inherently contrasted by a non-vocal majority. Certainly the vocal portion for is a minority but so is the vocal portion against. Assuming that the vocal population is a representative subset of the overall population, then it is reasonable to listen to the plurality. If the vocal population is not representative, then the feedback becomes completely useless on both sides.

Additionally, the frequency with which I see some variation of "tiny little things that haven't been fully realised[sic] and finished testing." is astounding. The entire point of the Beta is to provide feedback on such things. None of us are saying the game is somehow "uncorrectable" now, but it is entirely reasonable to express an objection in the hopes of seeing it corrected. If the FFG wanted to create the game in a vacuum, they could have. Instead, they created a public Beta and they decided to use price point as the selection process. People object to the things they find objectionable. The significance level of each the element being objected to is subjective.

Put another way, if you want to voice your counterpoint, that's fine. But please stop implying that someone else's feedback is somehow less valid than your own just because you don't agree with them. As far as the Morality system goes, comparatively few people have spoken in favor of it as written so they've been modifying it over time. Currently opinions seem split over the idea of taking a Talent giving Conflict, but there seems to be a slight leaning toward the Bad Idea side. Ironically it seems a lot like the sides are having different arguments. One side is saying "It's reasonable for Talents to grant Conflict." while the other side is saying "Sure, it's reasonable, but it should be a result of using the Talent, not having it." Obviously there's a spectrum of opinions but those seem to be the largest "sides".

Edited by T3CHN0Shaman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew F&D was going to be the most controversial game in the system, however it's getting to a point where vocal minorities are screaming over tiny little things that haven't even been fully realised and finished testing.

 

I don't think any of us are under the illusion that these are critical game design choices.  I've noted many times, even when being a stubborn poster, that very few of the mechanics being argued for/against are game breaking.  

 

In fact, the issue isn't the scope of the effect, but the more intellectual/philosophical/thematic issue of should this mechanical effect exist and does it support the narrative of star wars.

 

On the one hand, I like the auto conflict as I think some knowledge is corrupting, and I like to see that reflected in the rules.  call me crazy and a little into cthulhu at times.  I like the slow drain on morality, that (I'm assuming with splats) could quicken and become a tailspin of slipping sanity.

 

On the other hand, I am not a fan of putting players into a position where taking say, 3 dark side talents could potentially override their future choices.  GM fiat aside, there is no recourse for some one who feels they made a mistake taking these talents (terrify and the hypothetical future ones).  There is no other permanent effect in all three cores on this level, and that is something that can't simply be hand waved away with the "it's just one conflict" argument.

 

I'm leery of anything that begins to erode player choice and character dynamism, and this is something that currently could.  Not "does" mind you, not to any significant extent, but certainly could.

 

Remember, you only see 10% of the iceberg.  if this is what they are showing us, there could be much more in development, and it's important not only that they hear support or the wailing and gnashing of teeth, but why we like/dislike these elements so that the game is better for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's this 'before the internet' time I'm suddenly hearing about? How did Google work?

When you rely on text to voice, OP's message does come off sounding like a manifesto. I thought it was an exaggerated joke, tbh.

I see a lot of complaints about feedback, opinions of feedback, etc. but, I think, when the feedback is in this kind of format, no one should be surprised if it isn't taken entirely seriously or if it inspires equally emotional counterpoints... or people saying, "Come off it!"

I don't know if it's a bad rule or not or if it might be badly placed here. Palpatine said that there are things the Jedi would consider unnatural. Maybe its a better rule for these sorts of things. The Pandora's Box abilities. You can know them but this isn't just peeking in on the Dark Side. This is FULL FLEDGED CONSUMED. As someone put it, you're on a path beyond redemption or, should it occur, you've got to die because you're not escaping otherwise.

This actually seems fitting to me... but you guys talking about 1980 scare me so be nice!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's this 'before the internet' time I'm suddenly hearing about? How did Google work?

...

This actually seems fitting to me... but you guys talking about 1980 scare me so be nice!

 

Google was these places of higher learning called universities and these places called libraries.  'Text to voice' was reading out loud in class.

 

Be not afraid!  Fear leads to...oh, never mind...

 

By all means, continue the discussion.  My Jiffy popcorn is almost empty, I'm all out of Reese's Pieces and my Rubik's cube needs solving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was the only girl in my class who could do the Rubik cube.  I'm a Brit though so I didn't have the other things! :)

 

Your life was probably more enriched for their lack.  I mean, who needs this stuff when you have the Queen?!

Edited by angelicdoctor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, to get a little more back toward the topic...

 

...while I'm not a big fan of the OP's tone (I'm not sure they have any place issuing Thou Shalt Not's to anyone), I agree in substance.  If you're automatically getting Conflict for choices you made in your past, you can't ever truly redeem yourself.

 

What about something like "all Conflict gained while using this talent is doubled"?

 

On a side note, I disagree that something like Terrify is fundamentally less Dark Side than something like Force lightning.  After all, Force lightning can only kill you, but fear leads to the Dark Side.  I'd argue that the true conflict in the Emperor's throne room in RotJ wasn't whether Luke could prevail in the lightsaber battle, but whether the Emperor could convince him to give into his fear and hatred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chomp, chomp. Good kettle chips. Slurp, slurp. Tasty beer. Love these alignment...sorry...morality debates. Personally I don't mind the talent giving conflict. But then what do I know, Duelist Training didn't bother me either. This talent is all about instilling fear in your target, not awe or any other rationalization I've read. If it was you could use other abilities like Charm or Deception or other cattributes like Presence or Cunning. But it is based off of Coercion. Taking it doesn't make you evil or dark. As a PC choice though it is statement that I am comfortable being a scary individual with the ability to accentuate that scariness with the Force. And in game terms there is a price to pay for that ability.

Edited by mouthymerc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the topic?  I thought that we were pretty much done.

 

Conversations have more than 2 sides (as Enoch illustrates by providing an alternate suggestion) and even if they rehash the same arguments, new people posting provides additional datapoints; which reduces the error range in the statistical set.

 

Personally (while I'd have to check the relevant rules again) I think relevant conflict might already be covered by the Morality rules. If you feel it needs more, making the Force Points Dark Side only (which fits with Influence) and maybe for generating Conflict successes while using it should do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Back to the topic?  I thought that we were pretty much done.

 

Conversations have more than 2 sides (as Enoch illustrates by providing an alternate suggestion) and even if they rehash the same arguments, new people posting provides additional datapoints; which reduces the error range in the statistical set.

 

 

Or adds more confusion...and in my case...I have become rather apathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Angelicdoctor says we're done and no amount of anyone still having something to say is going to change his mind. Any attempts at talking will only result in his reminding us that he's done... And apathetic. If only this wasn't his Internet...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I probably have polyhedral dice older than most forum posters here.

 

Are you stealing my chat-up lines now? 

 

 

I mean, who needs this stuff when you have the Queen?!

 

Ah, I said I was a Brit, not English. 

 

I'm actually Welsh, Cardiff  born and bred.  We hate the Queen!

 

(the royal family version, that is. We like Messrs Mercury, Taylor and May just fine...)

Edited by Maelora

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...