|
To be frank, these arguments largely boil down to "but the GM can fix it!" and nobody's made an argument over why the morality mechanics are a good addition to the game, much less a good replacement for Obligations. Tempting jedi to take "the easy way" was something that already existed. Describing your character as being "angry but loyal" is something that did not need to be gameified. Paragon isn't supposed to be a permanent state? And yet, there's no mechanics at all that encourage you to ever leave it! Consider Obligation. In chargen, you get rewarded for adding even more poo poo gone wrong to your life - right then and there the player is mechanically encouraged to add some more spice to things. If and when players do start to clear them, not only is the GM encouraged to add more Obligations as things come up, but to use it as a carrot rather then just a stick. You need a whole lot of money fast? There's someone willing to give a loan. And even if you clear everything out, there's still the 5 point minimum. Obligations are rolled openly at the start of things to help get the ball moving. It makes things personal, and you're never quite free of your Obligations, and there's always that promise that "this time it won't be so bad" when the hutt's envoy says he knows a guy who can repair your ship. Morality? First off, the actual Morality strength and weakness you choose doesn't make a difference. Secondly, while Obligation is built around rewarding actions, Morality is built to a large degree around the opposite. Look at how Conflict works - it's not built around doing a good thing, it's built around not doing lovely things. In other words, it's built entirely around inaction. You don't get rewarded for just having a morality, only for capping it - so while Obligation players are bouncing from one gently caress up to the next as every bad decision (amongst a sea of worse decisions) leads to future plot hooks, Morality players want to pick a side and never stop aiming for it. When a player is about to do something that would cause Conflict, the GM is supposed to immediately tell them that, so no, the player does not end up with "good intentions, bad results." It's Bioware as gently caress! Your actions literally have a big "+DARK SIDE" sign next to them! But look at what else Conflict does. Luke redeeming Vader is more or less the big apex of Return of the Jedi, the big moment of the movie. Guess what? Literally cannot happen with Morality. The only way to bring someone out of the dark side is to spend year after year after year with them not gaining Conflict. Anakin, blinded by rage, arrogance, and fear, snaps, helps a big ol' Sith Lord destroy the jedi, and murders a bunch of children. He loses 18 Conflict and remains totally not yet dark sided. Luke on the other hand turns to the dark side to fight Darth Vader in anger when a comment about his sister is made, only to later drop his lightsaber and refuse to fight. Sadly, he rolls poorly on his Conflict roll after redeeming his father and returning him to the light side and loses Morality. Some random jedi PC is fighting a monster, when it suddenly uses a horrible monster attack that causes fear. The jedi rolls low on Discipline, which makes them gain Conflict, because, you know, basically the same thing as intentionally being evil. Star Wars is about big, dramatic moments. Obi-Wan accepts his death, knowing it's for the best, and raises his lightsaber so he can be struck down. Luke makes the one in a million shot to take out the Death Star. Lando betrays the party to Darth Vader. Luke learns about his father. Han is captured and taken to Jabba the Hutt - and then rescued in a daring, if slightly not all that well planned, attack. Vader is brought back into the light. It's about personal conflict, your past coming back to bite you on the rear end, exciting fights in and out of space, and the occasional bumbling. Obligation fits that perfectly. Morality doesn't. Morality isn't built around any of the three original movies - it's 100% built around KotOR. It's a stat to grind. Every conflict it could've created already exists. It doesn't add to your backstory, and it doesn't add to the GROUP'S problems. When Han is captured, it's something for the whole group to do - it's an exciting new mission. Having a situation designed to make the Jedi get angry doesn't effect the group in the slightest - and in turn, it requires the jedi choose to get angry, all while the actual mechanics tell him over and over again not to. It's not designed around tempting the jedi, it's designed around punishing the jedi for BEING tempted - which in turn means the jedi's player doesn't want to ever be tempted. As Jivjov said, his players took Conflict points personal - because they're designed that way. They're a punishment.
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 11:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 16:43 |
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:To be frank, these arguments largely boil down to "but the GM can fix it!" and nobody's made an argument over why the morality mechanics are a good addition to the game, much less a good replacement for Obligations. Tempting jedi to take "the easy way" was something that already existed. Describing your character as being "angry but loyal" is something that did not need to be gameified. Paragon isn't supposed to be a permanent state? And yet, there's no mechanics at all that encourage you to ever leave it! Okay, so first off, Obligation and morality is no more gameified than obligation. I mean, "I'm loyal but reckless" does not need a mechanic, but "I have a bounty over my head" does? quote:Morality? First off, the actual Morality strength and weakness you choose doesn't make a difference. Secondly, while Obligation is built around rewarding actions, Morality is built to a large degree around the opposite. Look at how Conflict works - it's not built around doing a good thing, it's built around not doing lovely things. In other words, it's built entirely around inaction. You don't get rewarded for just having a morality, only for capping it - so while Obligation players are bouncing from one gently caress up to the next as every bad decision (amongst a sea of worse decisions) leads to future plot hooks, Morality players want to pick a side and never stop aiming for it. When a player is about to do something that would cause Conflict, the GM is supposed to immediately tell them that, so no, the player does not end up with "good intentions, bad results." It's Bioware as gently caress! Your actions literally have a big "+DARK SIDE" sign next to them! No, YOU want Morality to make players pick a side. You, and only you get hung up on having to max out your Morality, and for a measly little bonus to boot. I mean, it's not as if the game does not repeteadly states that it's narrative driven first and foremost. quote:But look at what else Conflict does. Luke redeeming Vader is more or less the big apex of Return of the Jedi, the big moment of the movie. Guess what? Literally cannot happen with Morality. The only way to bring someone out of the dark side is to spend year after year after year with them not gaining Conflict. Anakin, blinded by rage, arrogance, and fear, snaps, helps a big ol' Sith Lord destroy the jedi, and murders a bunch of children. He loses 18 Conflict and remains totally not yet dark sided. Luke on the other hand turns to the dark side to fight Darth Vader in anger when a comment about his sister is made, only to later drop his lightsaber and refuse to fight. Sadly, he rolls poorly on his Conflict roll after redeeming his father and returning him to the light side and loses Morality. Some random jedi PC is fighting a monster, when it suddenly uses a horrible monster attack that causes fear. The jedi rolls low on Discipline, which makes them gain Conflict, because, you know, basically the same thing as intentionally being evil. Okay, first, someone missed the part about about redemption which states that great, significative actions can be enough. Second, fear driving you to the Dark Side is not Star Wars enough for you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 13:31
|
|
|
Those are all very good ideas thank you all!
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
To be frank I know nothing about Morality but I'm understanding Cirno's perspective because my dumb players hate their obligation and treat it like the plague instead of a neat game mechanic. I can only imagine if they had even less incentive to mess with it what it would be like.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
So is anyone else slightly concerned by the fact that we went from having 5 or 6 books on the horizon to having only 1? We know Special Modifications is hitting next Thursday, and after that all that's coming is Savage Spirits...
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
All the FFG stuff has gotten that way. I blame Asmodee
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
alg posted:All the FFG stuff has gotten that way. I blame Asmodee Is Asmodee stifling their announcement schedule? Like...is this an actual concern with them?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
I have no idea. But it wouldn't surprise me if they decided to announce future product closer to their release date, given their worldwide street date bullshit they've instituted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
alg posted:I have no idea. But it wouldn't surprise me if they decided to announce future product closer to their release date, given their worldwide street date bullshit they've instituted. Are streetdates that huge of an issue? I kinda like a guarantee that everyone gets a product at the same time. Not a huge deal for RPGs, but their more competitive stuff like X-Wing and the LCGs, it seems fairer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
I feel like you're intentionally not engaging with any of the points I'm trying to make, so I'm going to go drink beer instead of putting any more effort into this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Are streetdates that huge of an issue? I kinda like a guarantee that everyone gets a product at the same time. Not a huge deal for RPGs, but their more competitive stuff like X-Wing and the LCGs, it seems fairer. nah I think it's fine, as long as Amazon doesn't send out two weeks early from here on out, and it doesn't mean 8 month waits for games announced at Gencon
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
Zodack posted:To be frank I know nothing about Morality but I'm understanding Cirno's perspective because my dumb players hate their obligation and treat it like the plague instead of a neat game mechanic. I can only imagine if they had even less incentive to mess with it what it would be like. That I actually understand rather well. In my experience, players either pick the riskiest plan and show no self preservation whatsoever, or they are completely risk adverse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
IMO, the dark side points of D6 are a much better mechanic than Morality. I haven't played with Morality, but I have played a LOT with DSP. IRL friends still talk about Star Wars campaigns from 20 years ago because of how good I was at taunting people with DSP usage at just the right moment. And yeah, I did the whole "roll a D6 to lose control of your character." My players never knew that I fudged every single roll unless they were being a shitlord or something or got into the 4-6 DSP range. Obligation comes close to offering me the same toolbox, but within the narrative scope of the campaign, which is cool. I've re-read the Morality rules twice now, and I just don't see that. Yes, as a GM, I can do x, y, or z, but it's a bad toolset. Like trying to drive a nail with a screwdriver levels of bad. I pretty much agree with everything Cirno said, at this point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
It's an even worse mechanic, with even less bearing, though. Especially the "Go play on your phone, I'm taking your character" part. Especially when you admit yourself that you never used it as written.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Iceclaw posted:It's an even worse mechanic, with even less bearing, though. Especially the "Go play on your phone, I'm taking your character" part. Yeah, I get the criticisms, and yet it worked really well and was very memorable for all of us. *shrug*
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
Finster Dexter posted:Yeah, I get the criticisms, and yet it worked really well and was very memorable for all of us. *shrug* If you were only pretending to use it, it didn't work at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
So this Beyond the Rim one shot I'm doing for my brothers bachelor party already has characters with 10x more thought put into them and their backgrounds than my awful usual party. It goes to show that playing for fun and the ambience is so much better than playing to "win".
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
made another planet sheet
alg fucked around with this message at 15:34 on Mar 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
I don't like Obligation or Duty. I appreciate what they were going for, but it's just annoying in practice. It's, like, too much bookkeeping for how abstract it is. At least it's easy to ignore (and incorporate through simple roleplaying instead). I feel like I'd want some kind of mechanical system for light and dark force stuff, but maybe that's just because I've come to expect it from other games.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
Wikipedia Brown posted:I don't like Obligation or Duty. I appreciate what they were going for, but it's just annoying in practice. It's, like, too much bookkeeping for how abstract it is. At least it's easy to ignore (and incorporate through simple roleplaying instead). Obligation I feel doesn't really need a discreet number attached to it; especially because that number is really only used as a rough indication of magnitude (which is easy to just roleplay), and to weight the random number generation for whose obligation triggers (which I prefer to do in advance anyway; as it sucks to plot out a session and then suddenly have to incorporate someone's obligation in a meaningful way.) Duty, on the other hand, I can respect having hard and fast numbers on a bit more, since there are rewards tied to it, and if you're actually playing a military focused campaign having stricter regimentation makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
Wikipedia Brown posted:I don't like Obligation or Duty. I appreciate what they were going for, but it's just annoying in practice. It's, like, too much bookkeeping for how abstract it is. At least it's easy to ignore (and incorporate through simple roleplaying instead). How is a number that gets looked at once per session and that is largely static "too much bookkeeping"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
homullus posted:How is a number that gets looked at once per session and that is largely static "too much bookkeeping"? Well, I mean, you could not look at it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
homullus posted:How is a number that gets looked at once per session and that is largely static "too much bookkeeping"? I'm incredibly lazy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
RaceyBucket posted:What are some reasonable things to happen to a ship on a smuggling run other than like customs or rival smugglers? gently caress reasonable, this is Star Wars. Cargo is full of Geonosian Brain Worms Cargo is 100 times more valuable than they thought Humanitarian crisis (that requires a diversion unless they want to let a colony die, and may require giving up their cargo) Divert out of major lanes to evade checkpoint, stumble upon top-secret Empire operation
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
I have a bunch of players who have joined the campaign at different points and I've had trouble coming up with a strong reason for them to be adventuring together. I was thinking of creating a mercenary company to hire them as an option but what would you guys recommend to glue this PC meatloaf together?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Just gloss over it. It's not worth straining anyone's brain over "why are these guys traveling together". You just are. Simpler for everyone that way haha.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Sushi in Yiddish posted:I have a bunch of players who have joined the campaign at different points and I've had trouble coming up with a strong reason for them to be adventuring together. I was thinking of creating a mercenary company to hire them as an option but what would you guys recommend to glue this PC meatloaf together? A mysterious benefactor starts buying out/resolving all of their Obligations. The bounty hunter who was tracking one is announced as the lone casualty of some incident; the money the Twi'lek owes a Hutt gets paid off. Each time, they get a datapad or a HoloNet message. Then orders start coming in, and if they blow off those orders, Bad Things happen. Ideally, they get motivated to figure out who's behind it in between missions they do for the Benefactor, and take out further Obligation in order to unmask him/her/it/them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Just gloss over it. It's not worth straining anyone's brain over "why are these guys traveling together". You just are. or "the Force drew you together"
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Just gloss over it. It's not worth straining anyone's brain over "why are these guys traveling together". You just are. On point. I did this with both of my groups. Unfortunately my stupid suicide murder group didn't even think through their backstories (hence them trying to constantly undermine each other because of their "backstory") but the group I just GM'd for my brother's bachelor party stuck together fast. There was some tension between the players but that kind of mistrust, when roleplayed well, is really healthy for the group because it's usually a working arrangement of smugglers and thieves who don't completely trust each other.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Keep the group from your brother's bachelor party and dump the other worthless fuckers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Just gloss over it. It's not worth straining anyone's brain over "why are these guys traveling together". You just are. It's a love quadrangle
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
homullus posted:If you were only pretending to use it, it didn't work at all. People had fun. Therefore, it worked.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Iceclaw posted:Keep the group from your brother's bachelor party and dump the other worthless fuckers. I honestly wish I could but the logistics of that would be nearly impossible. I'm stuck with the other guys until we either stop meeting due to people dropping or they all murder each other. I'm hoping for option 2 because at least that would be amusing. It was really cool though - one of the groomsmen is our cousin who was homeschooled in a really conservative family so he has no exposure to this kind of thing, and he got so energized and excited about it after playing. Made me feel really good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Zodack posted:I honestly wish I could but the logistics of that would be nearly impossible. I'm stuck with the other guys until we either stop meeting due to people dropping or they all murder each other. I'm hoping for option 2 because at least that would be amusing. You don't have to DM a game you don't want to: This is supposed to be fun for you aswell.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Yeah, I know. Deep down I keep hoping my players have it in them to be better, and for every two steps back there is a step forward and people are making an effort, which is an improvement over how it used to be. I think they just need to acclimate to playing more and figure out how not to be brainless. If it gets progressively worse yes, I will drop it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Any advise regarding coercion? It's based on wp which wookies are bad at which led to a kind of weird situation where the party wookie would have struggled to make a rodian run away. In the end I just had them roll brawl instead which seemed fine?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
ShineDog posted:Any advise regarding coercion? It's based on wp which wookies are bad at which led to a kind of weird situation where the party wookie would have struggled to make a rodian run away. Yeah, that is one area of the rules I don't really like. But we kind of worked around it by having the Wookiee give an assist to the player with more willpower. "Now I see your point but scruffy here is getting angry. You wouldn't want to make him angry would you?" Something like that. But yeah, I suppose brawl would also work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
nelson posted:Yeah, that is one area of the rules I don't really like. But we kind of worked around it by having the Wookiee give an assist to the player with more willpower. "Now I see your point but scruffy here is getting angry. You wouldn't want to make him angry would you?" Something like that. But yeah, I suppose brawl would also work. Isn't that already a talent? I think it's called Loom or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
Savidudeosoo posted:Isn't that already a talent? I think it's called Loom or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 16:43 |
|
|
Pretty sure the start of the skill section mentions this exact situation as an example of when to use an alternate stat. You don't have to only use skills with their listed stat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 06:15
|
|