Changing Morality rules a little?

[StarkJunior 1,240]

It always makes me wonder what those of us who don't seem to have these issues with Morality are doing so drastically different from those who do.

Edited March 13, 2017 by StarkJunior

[Space Monkey 124]

One man's meat is another man's poison.

Just a suggestion...

Seriously though, I always wonder why some people have so much trouble accepting that some others may want to change the rules a little. It doesn't change your game any so why does it matter if we want to change anything?

Page 9 of the Core states "the GM is the ultimate arbiter of how the rules are interpreted... <snip> ...using them or breaking them as necessary to maximize fun..." "Fun first, rules second" which is basically the main rule of any RPG. Yet when someone comes along and asks for advice to enhance their own game, they are questioned and belittled by people it doesn't even hurt.

If you don't like the thread subject, and it doesn't matter to you either way, why post a response?

Edited March 13, 2017 by Space Monkey

[emsquared 779]

2 hours ago, Space Monkey said:

Seriously though, I always wonder why some people have so much trouble accepting that some others may want to change the rules a little. It doesn't change your game any so why does it matter if we want to change anything?

...

If you don't like the thread subject, and it doesn't matter to you either way, why post a response?

As with any community, but especially with the prevalence of online play and the corresponding ease for players and GMs to play with many other "localized" people/communities, the Community at large benefits from a more consistent understanding and, to a lesser degree, implementation of the rules.

The same reason societies like/benefit from consistent laws across a nation, makes it easier to travel and operate wherever you go.

Also, using houserules ar your own table makes it harder to teas he the system. You can't just refer to the book, your players have to know your rules, that only you can explain. This teaching aspect also applies to the Community at large - it's easier to teach to new ppl who come to the community at large if the community at large doesn't come to them (say, in a forum thread) and gives five different ways that things "should" be done.

I think that's the general reasoning.

[Kael 1,865]

3 hours ago, Space Monkey said:

Seriously though, I always wonder why some people have so much trouble accepting that some others may want to change the rules a little. It doesn't change your game any so why does it matter if we want to change anything?

 

No one actually cares what someone else does at their table. The issue isn't that they want to change anything. Change whatever you like. However, if you go onto the forum and ask our opinion on the matter we are free to argue it back and forth as much as we like. 

If you are asking a public forum then you want differing opinions. People who don't want a different opinion don't even bother asking on a public forum. 

4 hours ago, Space Monkey said:

If you don't like the thread subject, and it doesn't matter to you either way, why post a response?

So people should only be told their ideas are good and awesome?

[Space Monkey 124]

My original post was explaining how I'm not keen on the rules for something, and that Id like to change them. Then I asked for suggestions. Some answers were helpful and actual went some way to answering my question. The majority of answers basically boiled down to "why change it? It's fine as is". That's not helpful based on the information I provided in the original post. It's almost as if the idea of changing the "sacred rules" is blasphemy.

Now, based on emsquared's response, I shouldn't expect a helpful answer as to give one may confuse new players...   oooookay.

And, Kael. I'd love to tell people their idea's are good and awesome, but the people I'm complaining about are the one's who say "leave the rules alone!" That isn't helpful, and therefore isn't a good and awesome idea now is it?

If I go on a recipe forum (for example) and someone says "I'm interested in the recipe for lemon tart, only I don't like lemon. Do you have any suggestions to change it to something I can try?", I won't do the following:

a. Post a reply saying "Whats wrong with lemon?"

b. Post a reply saying "Just leave the recipe alone, it's fine as it is".

What I will do is either post an alternative idea for them to try out, even if I wouldn't try it myself, or simply not reply as I have no interest in a non-lemon tart

Anyways, as we're now 4 pages into this thread and I still don't have a helpful answer, I will graciously bow out of this conversation and figure it out myself. Thanks everyone! (I think...   :/)

[emsquared 779]

13 minutes ago, Space Monkey said:

My original post was explaining how I'm not keen on the rules for something, and that Id like to change them. Then I asked for suggestions.

Lol

I told you why your idea 1; making it a skill check, was a bad idea. You didn't ask any further.

I told you what your idea 2; using a d6, would do. Even that it would work if you want to make it easier to go Dark. Which it sounds like you do.

Then I told you a specific way to make the existing mechanic work by altering the narrative implementation. Aka a suggestion.

Lots of other people did the same thing in variation.

We obeyed your rules.

If you didn't find anything helpful amongst all that, it's because you didn't have your belief re-affirmed and therefore refused to find any help.

Edited March 13, 2017 by emsquared

[Kael 1,865]

7 minutes ago, Space Monkey said:

It's almost as if the idea of changing the "sacred rules" is blasphemy.

Not at all. People make plenty of changes. What tends to happen is that most of us have years of experience with the rules and when people say they need to change it we understand that they really don't. Most people who suggest rule changes are just making the game harder for themselves. People take disagreement with a rules change as if we consider the rules sacred. We don't. But we do have the experince to know when a rules change will actually be good or not. Typically if the forum consensous is don't change something it's because we have enough experince to know that the proposed changes won't work. 

 

12 minutes ago, Space Monkey said:

And, Kael. I'd love to tell people their idea's are good and awesome, but the people I'm complaining about are the one's who say "leave the rules alone!" That isn't helpful, and therefore isn't a good and awesome idea now is it?

 

A fair number of the "don't change it" post did explain why.  They just didn't tell you what you wanted to hear. But they did highlight the real problem and why it should be left alone, which most people would have considerd helpful ....

[Jedi Ronin 1,588]

I haven't read every comment so I don't know if this has been mentioned yet but...I've seen others suggest elsewhere that rolling for Morality at the end of an adventure instead of each session (so typically roll every 2 or 3 session, maybe after 1 session) slows down the accumulation of Morality and makes the small Conflict gains more significant.

[Tramp Graphics 2,328]

13 hours ago, Kael said:

I read them several times before making my argument. I stand by my statements.

And you would still be wrong. You are not required to go on a special "redemption quest" by RAW. All the RAW states is that the GM should challenge the character as he goes about trying to redeem himself, making it harder for him to raise his morality by continuously tempting him to give in to his darker tendencies. That is what the book says, in a nutshell.

[Aetrion 441]

You can houserule absolutely everything to your liking, but a game like this doesn't benefit from a fractured community like that. At the end of the day the #1 thing that sells RPG books is people knowing that they will get to use them, and that means there need to be a lot of players playing the system without gratuitous modification so you can find a group anywhere. 

It always amuses me how with D&D it's commonplace for people to write their own world setting but use the rules largely as written, but for most other RPGs people are insistent on playing to the exact world setting and instead modify the hell out of the rules. Then they wonder why D&D is still at the top of the pile. Of course a system where it's accepted fact that you can play in hundreds of homespun worlds and adventures by only learning a single set of rules is going to be more attractive to players than a system that plays in one single world and significant portions of the rules need to be tweaked and modified to make sense with that world. 

 

2 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

I haven't read every comment so I don't know if this has been mentioned yet but...I've seen others suggest elsewhere that rolling for Morality at the end of an adventure instead of each session (so typically roll every 2 or 3 session, maybe after 1 session) slows down the accumulation of Morality and makes the small Conflict gains more significant.

At that rate you're trending toward the dark side on just 2 points of conflict per session. That basically doesn't allow you to do any conflict actions at all. I don't think it's an improvement. The issue with Morality is that characters who abandon morality all together wind up in a system where they either must take conflict to avoid accidental redemption, or can remain a paragon of light by just gaming the system a little. 

[Space Monkey 124]

14 minutes ago, emsquared said:

Lol

I told you why your idea 1; making it a skill check, was a bad idea. You didn't ask any further.

I told you what your idea 2; using a d6, would do. Even that it would work if you want to make it easier to go Dark. Which it sounds like you do.

Then I told you a specific way to make the existing mechanic work by altering the narrative implementation. Aka a suggestion.

Lots of other people did the same thing in variation.

We obeyed your rules.

If you didn't find anything helpful amongst all that, it's because you didn't have your belief re-affirmed and therefore refused to find any help.

...and if you'd quoted my very next line, I did say that some answers were helpful and actual went some way to answering my question. But thanks for making me out to be sooooo stuborn as to "refuse to find any help" rather than simply not be too keen on the current suggestions and maybe just looking for something else that fit's what I'm after

18 minutes ago, Kael said:

Not at all. People make plenty of changes. What tends to happen is that most of us have years of experience with the rules and when people say they need to change it we understand that they really don't. Most people who suggest rule changes are just making the game harder for themselves. People take disagreement with a rules change as if we consider the rules sacred. We don't. But we do have the experience to know when a rules change will actually be good or not. Typically if the forum consensus is don't change something it's because we have enough experience to know that the proposed changes won't work. 

 

A fair number of the "don't change it" post did explain why.  They just didn't tell you what you wanted to hear. But they did highlight the real problem and why it should be left alone, which most people would have considered helpful ....

**** straight. But if you ask a question and you're not keen on any of the current replies, would you roll over and just accept one of them and move on? Or would you say "thanks but no thanks" and keep on searching for a solution? I assume most people would pick the latter, yet I'm made out to be in the wrong because I didn't choose one of the answers on offer? Hmm, ok. Thanks again...

[Space Monkey 124]

2 minutes ago, Aetrion said:

You can houserule absolutely everything to your liking, but a game like this doesn't benefit from a fractured community like that. At the end of the day the #1 thing that sells RPG books is people knowing that they will get to use them, and that means there need to be a lot of players playing the system without gratuitous modification so you can find a group anywhere. 

It always amuses me how with D&D it's commonplace for people to write their own world setting but use the rules largely as written, but for most other RPGs people are insistent on playing to the exact world setting and instead modify the hell out of the rules. Then they wonder why D&D is still at the top of the pile. Of course a system where it's accepted fact that you can play in hundreds of homespun worlds and adventures by only learning a single set of rules is going to be more attractive to players than a system that plays in one single world and significant portions of the rules need to be tweaked and modified to make sense with that world. 

 

At that rate you're trending toward the dark side on just 2 points of conflict per session. That basically doesn't allow you to do any conflict actions at all. I don't think it's an improvement. The issue with Morality is that characters who abandon morality all together wind up in a system where they either must take conflict to avoid accidental redemption, or can remain a paragon of light by just gaming the system a little. 

Christ, you make it sound like I'm trying to change the printing of the rules so it ends up ruining everyone's game like some kind of cancer ultimately bringing down the whole Star Wars RPG community:D

I was just asking for help to change my own game. I will never play with anyone else except my two players whom I'm had for years. Therefore it won't effect anyone else beyond my table. Therefore it has nothing to do with a "fractured community". It was a simple question, bud.

It's like being at MacDonalds (I like food-based examples, okay!?) and they ask "Do you want fries with that?" I say no and everyone in the queue glares at me and one guy says "You MUST say yes or you'll ruin everyone elses meal!!!"  

[emsquared 779]

Quote

...and if you'd quoted my very next line...

Oh I read it, I also read your closing paragraph. Incase you forgot, here's what it said:

"Anyways, as we're now 4 pages into this thread and I still don't have a helpful answer, I will graciously bow out of this conversation and figure it out myself."

Emphasis mine.

So yea, to recap you said you received some helpful answers but then said you didn't receive any helpful answers as your parting word, and now say you did receive helpful answers but that it wasn't the help you wanted... because ... I dunno you don't seem to be able to give a concrete reason other than it isn't a rule change for the sake of rule change.

And before that, you asked some questions, got lots of different types of answers that directly addressed your questions, you were unable to  refute the logic of many said different types of answers, proclaimed them unhelpful (but helpful, but not) and then took your ball and went home.

And now you brought the ball back.

...

Sound about right?

Edited March 13, 2017 by emsquared

[Space Monkey 124]

9 minutes ago, emsquared said:

Oh I did, I also read your closing paragraph. Incase you forgot, here's what it said:

"Anyways, as we're now 4 pages into this thread and I still don't have a helpful answer, I will graciously bow out of this conversation and figure it out myself."

Emphasis mine.

So yea, to recap you said you received some helpful answers but then said you didn't receive any helpful answers as your parting word, and now say you did receive helpful answers but that it wasn't the help you wanted... because ... I dunno you don't seem to be able to give a concrete reason other than it isn't a rule change for the sake of rule change.

And before that, you asked some questions, got lots of different types of answers that directly addressed your questions, you were unable to  refute the logic of many said different types of answers, proclaimed them unhelpful (but helpful, but not) and then took your ball and went home.

And now you brought the ball back.

...

Sound about right?

No, I'm pretty sure that my very next line, which I quoted myself in my other post, was NOT in your post to which I'm referring. Granted then went on with the above quote to say that I don't have a helpful answer. This part I agree I was wrong. BUT you didn't quote my very next line. Oh, and I'm keeping my ball...

Seriously guys, chill. I'm trying to keep bits light and dotting smileys around but jeez if some of you are getting a little serious about the whole thing... wish I'd never asked.

Edited March 13, 2017 by Space Monkey

[Daeglan 5,950]

14 hours ago, Aetrion said:

Yea, that's exactly why this is a situation where it makes sense for a generally good character to be taking massive conflict but then being able to recover. The character didn't abandon his morality, he was just confronted with a situation where he violated his convictions because he felt like someone else was doing something infinitely worse. 

It makes sense for a character with good intentions to fall to the dark side if they do dark sided things with a "the ends justify the means" attitude, or if their fear or anger gets the better of them. It also makes sense for them to slowly recover if they can keep those kinds of incidents under control. The morality system works OK as long as you assume your character is trying to be a moral/light side person and all conflict comes out of situations where they slip up or had to violate their convictions. You take conflict because your actions conflict with your morality. 

It makes no sense for a character with evil intentions or who fully embraces the dark side to trend toward the light if they just don't encounter a good enough reason to do anything heinous for a while though. The system doesn't work very well for a character who's supposed to be dark sided or evil.

 

I guess what the system should really have is a choice of different "moralities" where 100 is always being fully true to your convictions, while 0 is always having fallen so far that your character becomes unplayable. If your conviction is evil you still take conflict for doing unusually cruel or heinous things, but instead of struggling against accidental redemption you're always tending toward being a cool and in control bad guy, while the bottom of the scale would represent the power crazed insanity and boundless hubris that has brought down so many Sith.  That way, killing innocents and recovering also makes sense, because it's no longer a question of whether or not you're going back to being a paragon of light, it's a question of whether or not you're losing yourself in sadistic urges at the expense of your sanity and ambitions. 

except the Force doesnt give a crap about your morality. It is pretty black and white about it. 

[Aetrion 441]

1 hour ago, Space Monkey said:

Christ, you make it sound like I'm trying to change the printing of the rules so it ends up ruining everyone's game like some kind of cancer ultimately bringing down the whole Star Wars RPG community:D

No, that's not what I'm saying at all, I'm just saying that one of the biggest things that makes a roleplaying game attractive to people is the number of other people who play it by the same rules they already know. That's why when discussions around houserules pop up it's not entirely pointless to wish the devs will take note and eventually adjust the official rules. 

7 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

except the Force doesnt give a crap about your morality. It is pretty black and white about it. 

The force should care about personal morality, because it doesn't make any sense that someone who deliberately embraces the dark side can choose to be a paragon of light or has to struggle against accidental redemption by having to fill an evil quota every session.

Edited March 13, 2017 by Aetrion

[Tramp Graphics 2,328]

2 minutes ago, Aetrion said:

No, that's not what I'm saying at all, I'm just saying that one of the biggest things that makes a roleplaying game attractive to people is the number of other people who play it by the same rules they already know. That's why when discussions around houserules pop up it's not entirely pointless to wish the devs will take note and eventually adjust the official rules. 

If the force doesn't give a crap about morality then why have a morality system at all?

I don't think that is what Daeglan was saying. It's not that the Force doesn't care about morality, it's that the Force doesn't care about an individual's personal morals. 

[Daeglan 5,950]

6 minutes ago, Aetrion said:

No, that's not what I'm saying at all, I'm just saying that one of the biggest things that makes a roleplaying game attractive to people is the number of other people who play it by the same rules they already know. That's why when discussions around houserules pop up it's not entirely pointless to wish the devs will take note and eventually adjust the official rules. 

The force should care about personal morality, because it doesn't make any sense that someone who deliberately embraces the dark side can choose to be a paragon of light or has to struggle against accidental redemption by having to fill an evil quota every session.

Explain to me how a darksider is going to accidentally redeem themselves? No Seriously how is that going to happen? They still take conflict for using dark side points. They should still be doing darkside actions that cause conflict. I see no way to accidentally redeem a darksider. 

[Aetrion 441]

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I don't think that is what Daeglan was saying. It's not that the Force doesn't care about morality, it's that the Force doesn't care about an individual's personal morals. 

Which doesn't make any sense. If someone fully embraces the dark side, is a consumate Sith, deliberately fuels all their powers with hate and anger, then the force goes "Haha, sucker, you have to flip pips and take strain to use the dark side now, because you haven't killed enough people recently!"

[StarkJunior 1,240]

52 minutes ago, Aetrion said:

Which doesn't make any sense. If someone fully embraces the dark side, is a consumate Sith, deliberately fuels all their powers with hate and anger, then the force goes "Haha, sucker, you have to flip pips and take strain to use the dark side now, because you haven't killed enough people recently!"

Because the dark side is a sickness - it's a wound in the fabric of the Force, and frequently, reality. It hurts the soul and mind and body to use it, it's why we have many examples of Sith corruption in various medias. Thus, the strain works as does the destiny flips.

Also it makes total sense - in the universe. It's a fantasy and in that fantasy, the Force is black and white. Good and evil. Strict. The Force has a universal morality, that often clashes with personal morals because it doesn't care. It's why the 'grey' morality and people who embrace personal morals are more frequently the rogues, the outlaws, the soldiers, and such. 

Edited March 13, 2017 by StarkJunior

[Daeglan 5,950]

2 hours ago, Aetrion said:

Which doesn't make any sense. If someone fully embraces the dark side, is a consumate Sith, deliberately fuels all their powers with hate and anger, then the force goes "Haha, sucker, you have to flip pips and take strain to use the dark side now, because you haven't killed enough people recently!"

No.... wow you don't know how the force rules work do you? When you are darkside you can use darkside pips with out flipping a destiny and taking strain. You still get conflict. So a darksider is not going to accidentally redeem themselves. To redeem your self you have to change your behavior. Not use darkside pips. Flip a destiny to use lightside pips. Then work your way back up to 70 morality. 

[Kael 1,865]

8 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

And you would still be wrong. You are not required to go on a special "redemption quest" by RAW. All the RAW states is that the GM should challenge the character as he goes about trying to redeem himself, making it harder for him to raise his morality by continuously tempting him to give in to his darker tendencies. That is what the book says, in a nutshell.

 

Dude, I have no interest in derailing a thread with you to argue with you over a point that you are going to insist you're the only on who has gotten it right. Short of me agreeing to your view you're just going to respond with bolding text and moving the goal post back. 

I honestly have better ways to spend my time. Sorry but not sorry.

[Aetrion 441]

2 hours ago, Daeglan said:

No.... wow you don't know how the force rules work do you? When you are darkside you can use darkside pips with out flipping a destiny and taking strain. You still get conflict. So a darksider is not going to accidentally redeem themselves. To redeem your self you have to change your behavior. Not use darkside pips. Flip a destiny to use lightside pips. Then work your way back up to 70 morality. 

All the more reason to be an evil paragon of the light huh? 

[Kael 1,865]

8 hours ago, Space Monkey said:

**** straight. But if you ask a question and you're not keen on any of the current replies, would you roll over and just accept one of them and move on? Or would you say "thanks but no thanks" and keep on searching for a solution? I assume most people would pick the latter, yet I'm made out to be in the wrong because I didn't choose one of the answers on offer? Hmm, ok. Thanks again...

 

I never said you're in the wrong. But if you're going tocomplain that no one helped you when they tried to then I'm going to point out that we did in fact make an attempt. And several people have now stepped up to point out that they did in fact try to help you when you've claimed that you weren't getting what you want. 

As for if I asked a question and I'm not too keen on the current replies, it basically sounds like you were searching for a certian set of answers and you are asking if when I don't get the answer I want if I'm going to continue reasking the same question until someone says what I want to hear. The answer to that is no. That's not my style. 

You were given a solution. It just wasn't the solution you wanted to hear. 

 

6 hours ago, Aetrion said:

The force should care about personal morality, because it doesn't make any sense that someone who deliberately embraces the dark side can choose to be a paragon of light or has to struggle against accidental redemption by having to fill an evil quota every session.

 

Seriously dude who do you game with that this is a real problem. I've been playing this game since release and been talking about on this forum since release and like this doesn't seem to actual occur in games. 

[Space Monkey 124]

Oh, you guys crack me up. Can't we just be friends? Ok, I'm sorry that I didn't blindly follow the first reply that came along. I apologise. There, are we good now? Jeeeeezus. If I'm given a solution that I'm not happy with, I'm not going to accept it am I? I think I'm done with these forums if I can't even post a question but not be allowed to disagree with any of the answers. Seems like a Dictatorship. Bye!

 

Edited March 14, 2017 by Space Monkey