Nothing says sil 4 is the max. Each time you activate strength you increase the silhouette by your ranks. The ranks max out at 4, but the description says you increase BY your ranks, not TO them.

The real limiting factor in throwing Star Destroyers is range. How often are you within even extreme (personal) range with one?

Nothing says sil 4 is the max. Each time you activate strength you increase the silhouette by your ranks. The ranks max out at 4, but the description says you increase BY your ranks, not TO them.

Several things say 4 is the max.

First and most important, a Force power activation is an action and the last time I checked you can only do one per turn.

Second, once you activate the move power, it's activated and it uses its strength upgrades. Upgrades are not the power, move is. That means 4 silhouette max.

Third, why would there be an upgrade for magnitude and the ability to levitate multiple objects when I could just skip buying the magnitude upgrade and activate Move multiple times? That makes no sense.

Nothing says sil 4 is the max. Each time you activate strength you increase the silhouette by your ranks. The ranks max out at 4, but the description says you increase BY your ranks, not TO them.

Several things say 4 is the max.

First and most important, a Force power activation is an action and the last time I checked you can only do one per turn.

Second, once you activate the move power, it's activated and it uses its strength upgrades. Upgrades are not the power, move is. That means 4 silhouette max.

Third, why would there be an upgrade for magnitude and the ability to levitate multiple objects when I could just skip buying the magnitude upgrade and activate Move multiple times? That makes no sense.

1. Absolutely, you specify which power you'd like to use, roll your force dice, and then determine how to spend your points, and this takes up an action.

But....

2. "Unless specified otherwise, each ability may be activated multiple times."

3. Far more efficient with all the magnitude upgrades purchased to spend one point and lift five objects then to activate move multiple times spending a point on each.

Sorry, not at my table. It simply makes zero sense to me that someone with a 2 FR can juggle 3 Millennium Falcons or lift a SD with the Force. Yoda and the Emperor were pushing themselves tossing Senate daises at one another.

And this topic, ladies and gentlemen, is probably why F&D was the last core rulebook scheduled for release.

Nothing says sil 4 is the max. Each time you activate strength you increase the silhouette by your ranks. The ranks max out at 4, but the description says you increase BY your ranks, not TO them.

Several things say 4 is the max.

First and most important, a Force power activation is an action and the last time I checked you can only do one per turn.

Second, once you activate the move power, it's activated and it uses its strength upgrades. Upgrades are not the power, move is. That means 4 silhouette max.

Third, why would there be an upgrade for magnitude and the ability to levitate multiple objects when I could just skip buying the magnitude upgrade and activate Move multiple times? That makes no sense.

It was covered in the first post of this topic, but essentially, you can activate the same base power multiple times in the same action. This means if you wanted to commit 2 force dice to each Sense commit power, you can spend your action doing this. If you wanted to use move to flip a switch and then use it again to toss stuff at people, as long as you've got the force pips, you can do it. But using Enhance to force leap, then tossing stuff at people with Move - nope.

And the reason why you'd use magnitude is because this allows you to use fewer force pips to try and toss more objects at further ranges, but this means you need to increase your discipline difficulty and try and trigger auto-fire. Flip side, you can just go for guaranteed hits by using one at a time (assuming there's no adversary talents/defense on the enemy), but you're burning a pip + range each time. So magnitude for Move as a weapon basically gives you the capability to cause more damage.

But in regards to the silhouette 4 cap. It doesn't explicitly say it, but it's something that can be inferred. Under the strength upgrades, there's no text which is found under range and magnitude's - "The Force user may activate this multiple times, increasing the range by this number each time." This implies that you cannot use strength multiple times, which effectively puts a hard cap of silhouette 4. Only real argument against this, in terms of wording in the books, is that Enhance's range upgrade for Force Leap specifically calls out that the range upgrade cannot be activated multiple times and the fact that, again, in the original post, Sam Stewart mentioned all upgrades can be activated multiple times unless stated otherwise, for which Move's strength upgrades, both in EotE and AoR's Beta doesn't.

As always it's up to the GM on what they want to allow. But I'd say putting a cap on strength at 4, and preventing it from being used multiple times is reasonable enough - especially since even this is a bit more powerful than what was shown in the original trilogy. And even then, it's probably in players' best interest not to try tossing anything past silhouette 2 as weapons, unless they're incredibly far from their enemies to ensure they don't blow themselves up, or smash themselves, or any other numerous things that could happen when trying to weaponize spaceships as objects to bludgeon opponents with.

A Jedi or Sith career would be a horrible idea, in my opinion. Considering the popularity of the Jedi, and everyone has an idea on the proper way to do them, they would have to have at least 20 specialties in the career. This is why I hope that Jedi (and other traditions that use the force) are handled through the duty/obligation mechanical equivalent for this game.

One career or three doesn't make a difference being that people can take any specs they want to fulfill their concept. We have Force specs that allow for increasing Force Rating but we will need more to go to higher Force Ratings. What we also do not have is a starting career for Force users. We will need at least one for those that want a character that started in the Force.

I think being a Jedi will be covered by careers/specs and the "Commitment" mechanic. That way players can take said Force careers but call themselves "Jedi", "Sith" or "Jensaarai". Or they can take Explorer, Soldier or whatever with the "Jedi Commitment" and do the same thing. This would be the best option as it would allow for versatility of the system. Different paths but similar results and more people happy because there are more options.

Normally I'd agree that career doesn't matter, but if the career is named Jedi it comes with a lot of baggage. It would be akin to calling the bounty hunter career Boba Fett.

If you read what I proposed when I started putting out the idea of commitment, you'd see that it was another way to increase force rating. Similar to how with duty you can requisition new gear, it would, depending on commitment chosen, improve force rating, acquire lightsaber as a career skill, etc.

If only one career gives force rating it becomes the better choice. This will lead to most people taking that career and not the others. Similar phenomena to naming a career 'Jedi'. People will ignore the others.

Either all the careers give force rating 1 or none of them do, in favour of another method.

This is derailing this thread. Talking about potential careers and whatnot is not going to get us anywhere. If I had the time, I would certainly do a wtite up about how I envision the force and destiny, but with the potential beta coming out in a few months, the scant freedom I would have to work on it will be lost when official works are available.

As to force users being 'more powerful', that depends on a certain point of view. People keep throwing around the whole moving a star destroyer thing, but Yoda could have possibly done that. Here's something from empire that says doing this is possible:

[Luke can't levitate his X-Wing out of the bog]

Luke: I can't. It's too big.

Yoda: Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? Hmm. And well you should not. For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you; here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes. Even between the land and the ship.

Pulling the star destroyer down, in that game, was not a single action. It took me a while to do that. People also dont thibk about the ship as an active entity. Sure with the force you pull the ship closer. Then the ship moves away and fires turbolasers (in the blanket barrage manuever from force and destiny) at your position. You die and the star destroyer continues on its way.

I think it's a pretty safe bet that there's going to be a Jedi career. I won't say whether or not I think that's a good thing or a bad thing because I don't feel strongly either way, but suffice to say Bounty Hunter is a career even though we already have Hired Gun because Bounty Hunters are an expected element of Star Wars. If they were less essential to the mythos I don't think anybody would argue with Bounty Hunter beng a Hired Gun specialization.

Brand new players -- as in, low or no tabletop experience -- don't want to dig too deeply into a book they barely understand trying to figure out how to build a Bounty Hunter; it helps to make that concept one of the six core careers instead of one of the ninteen core specializations. My girlfriend was pretty nervous about that when she decided to join the game. All she knew was that she wanted to be a Twi'lek Bounty Hunter, but she had no idea how this 450 page tome in front of her would help her do that. ut regardless she wanted to figure it out for herself, and it took her all of an hour to do it. If Bounty Hunter were merely a specialization, I believe it would have taken her somewhat longer.

Bottom line: the list of available careers in FF's Star Wars system(s) are designed to tailor to the expectations of Star Wars fans AND gamers, not just one or the other.

I think it's a pretty safe bet that there's going to be a Jedi career. I won't say whether or not I think that's a good thing or a bad thing because I don't feel strongly either way, but suffice to say Bounty Hunter is a career even though we already have Hired Gun because Bounty Hunters are an expected element of Star Wars. If they were less essential to the mythos I don't think anybody would argue with Bounty Hunter beng a Hired Gun specialization.

Brand new players -- as in, low or no tabletop experience -- don't want to dig too deeply into a book they barely understand trying to figure out how to build a Bounty Hunter; it helps to make that concept one of the six core careers instead of one of the ninteen core specializations. My girlfriend was pretty nervous about that when she decided to join the game. All she knew was that she wanted to be a Twi'lek Bounty Hunter, but she had no idea how this 450 page tome in front of her would help her do that. ut regardless she wanted to figure it out for herself, and it took her all of an hour to do it. If Bounty Hunter were merely a specialization, I believe it would have taken her somewhat longer.

Bottom line: the list of available careers in FF's Star Wars system(s) are designed to tailor to the expectations of Star Wars fans AND gamers, not just one or the other.

I think it's a pretty safe bet that there's going to be a Jedi career. I won't say whether or not I think that's a good thing or a bad thing because I don't feel strongly either way, but suffice to say Bounty Hunter is a career even though we already have Hired Gun because Bounty Hunters are an expected element of Star Wars. If they were less essential to the mythos I don't think anybody would argue with Bounty Hunter beng a Hired Gun specialization.

Brand new players -- as in, low or no tabletop experience -- don't want to dig too deeply into a book they barely understand trying to figure out how to build a Bounty Hunter; it helps to make that concept one of the six core careers instead of one of the ninteen core specializations. My girlfriend was pretty nervous about that when she decided to join the game. All she knew was that she wanted to be a Twi'lek Bounty Hunter, but she had no idea how this 450 page tome in front of her would help her do that. ut regardless she wanted to figure it out for herself, and it took her all of an hour to do it. If Bounty Hunter were merely a specialization, I believe it would have taken her somewhat longer.

Bottom line: the list of available careers in FF's Star Wars system(s) are designed to tailor to the expectations of Star Wars fans AND gamers, not just one or the other.

I agree with this, there is little reason for FFG to not throw the net wide in creating whatever it is they finally launch. The idea is to appeal to as wide an audience as possible.

I guess my question would be for the all the back and forth we all have engaged in, can anyone say there is specifically something that is a deal breaker for them and if they learn it they won't buy the book?

I guess my question would be for the all the back and forth we all have engaged in, can anyone say there is specifically something that is a deal breaker for them and if they learn it they won't buy the book?

No. Nothing is a deal-breaker for me as I can adapt to anything. Some things work better than others, but I never met a game that totally turned me away if I was interested.

Sorry, not at my table. It simply makes zero sense to me that someone with a 2 FR can juggle 3 Millennium Falcons or lift a SD with the Force. Yoda and the Emperor were pushing themselves tossing Senate daises at one another.

Technically a well upgraded player can be moving around Falcons without even activating upgrades multiple times, but I see your point! The whole point of this thread is "Wow, force-users might be a little broken."

I'm considering a house-rule that activating Strength multiple times to move an object beyond your ranks in Strength will result in Strain based on the object's Silhouette. Maybe something similar for Magnitude as well.

I guess my question would be for the all the back and forth we all have engaged in, can anyone say there is specifically something that is a deal breaker for them and if they learn it they won't buy the book?

Mickey Mouse on the cover. Unless Mouse and Duck are included as Species options.

I guess my question would be for the all the back and forth we all have engaged in, can anyone say there is specifically something that is a deal breaker for them and if they learn it they won't buy the book?

Yes and no. I intend to buy the Beta if one becomes available. If there is a Jedi career, I may pass on the final core book, using the info from the beta to craft things the way I want it. That being said, if there is a Jedi career, which I am an opponent of, and FFG can do a good job winning me over as to why they did that I may reconsider.

I would split the difference of what i want and a jedi career with a Jedi universal specialty, possibly several even, each having the force rating increase talent.

To everyone who is trying to house rule something that is already in the rules and literally 3 people actually read it, your fear and hatred are blinding you.

The question about activating upgrades multiple times was answered 12 pages ago. This happened because I and about 2 other people (as far as I can tell) read the preamble in the Force chapter and noticed a ruling that says you can activate an upgrade multiple times unless told otherwise. Donovon asked the designer/developer about this when I pointed this out to him in another thread, and now we have an answer.

Deal with it.

At any table I play at, I would ask that the GM follow the rules of the game, as these rules are a collective agreement between the players and the GM. Straying from them takes options away from the players and limits their actions, since they no longer have that collective understanding of thr rules.

Furthermore, as I have stated repeatedly here and on other forums, while it is fine to make a ruling on something in the absence of rules, you are not a game developer or a lawyer. You do not know the damage you are doing to the rules by constantly changing things because you are afraid of something or because you want to spite your players. By limiting Move to a silhouette of 4, or by forcing additional strain, you are acting directly against the rules that are actually quite clear on this. By doing things like this, you are creating a butterfly effect, not twining in problems.

The reality if this ability is that someone can move a slightly larger object, should they be able to generate enough points to activate the upgrade multiple times. No one, anywhere, ever, is going to be able to generate enough points to throw a Star Destroyer from surface to orbit. It's never going to happen, so these fears and knee jerk reactions to house rule things are uncalled for.

Can we please just drop this and move on?

Except that very careful reading of the rules (seriously i spent over half an hour poring over the Edge CRB and Age Beta) yielded some nice results. Only Controls are "abilities". Pg. 278 states "Unless specified otherwise, each ability may be activated multiple times." Now read every single entry for every upgrade. Nowhere does it state the term "ability" except in the Control upgrades. "The Force user gains the ability to". Every single Control entry. None of the Magnitude, Strength, Range, or Duration use the word ability.

That means that you can't activate the Strength on Move multiple times, simply because it isn't an "ability", its an upgrade.

It's a very poor wording, and this whole mess would have been avoided if they simply had red boxed the Control Upgrades instead of green boxing.

So you use your action to pick a force power, generate your force points, and then pick which control(ability) you want to use. So if i say i want to use Force Move as my Action, then i generate Force Points then activate the control/ability i want to use. Then i have to pay any associated costs, from the base power/upgrade, as well as strength, magnitude, range, duration. Any remaining points can then be used to activate another Control or the base power.

The Control upgrades are Active talents, requiring you to actually use an action, maneuver, or incidental, and then pay an associated cost (like Strain/Force points).The Strength, Duration, Magnitude and Range upgrades are like Passive talents, they only modify other skills, talents, and abilities.

To everyone who is trying to house rule something that is already in the rules and literally 3 people actually read it, your fear and hatred are blinding you.

The question about activating upgrades multiple times was answered 12 pages ago. This happened because I and about 2 other people (as far as I can tell) read the preamble in the Force chapter and noticed a ruling that says you can activate an upgrade multiple times unless told otherwise. Donovon asked the designer/developer about this when I pointed this out to him in another thread, and now we have an answer.

Deal with it.

At any table I play at, I would ask that the GM follow the rules of the game, as these rules are a collective agreement between the players and the GM. Straying from them takes options away from the players and limits their actions, since they no longer have that collective understanding of thr rules.

Furthermore, as I have stated repeatedly here and on other forums, while it is fine to make a ruling on something in the absence of rules, you are not a game developer or a lawyer. You do not know the damage you are doing to the rules by constantly changing things because you are afraid of something or because you want to spite your players. By limiting Move to a silhouette of 4, or by forcing additional strain, you are acting directly against the rules that are actually quite clear on this. By doing things like this, you are creating a butterfly effect, not twining in problems.

The reality if this ability is that someone can move a slightly larger object, should they be able to generate enough points to activate the upgrade multiple times. No one, anywhere, ever, is going to be able to generate enough points to throw a Star Destroyer from surface to orbit. It's never going to happen, so these fears and knee jerk reactions to house rule things are uncalled for.

Can we please just drop this and move on?

I too like to stick to the written rules as close as possible, but this is a system meant to be altered to better fit the needs of each group. Fantasy Flight and the books themselves have repeated this multiple times. The needs of the GM and their players trump the written rules.

Except that very careful reading of the rules (seriously i spent over half an hour poring over the Edge CRB and Age Beta) yielded some nice results. Only Controls are "abilities". Pg. 278 states "Unless specified otherwise, each ability may be activated multiple times." Now read every single entry for every upgrade. Nowhere does it state the term "ability" except in the Control upgrades. "The Force user gains the ability to". Every single Control entry. None of the Magnitude, Strength, Range, or Duration use the word ability.

That means that you can't activate the Strength on Move multiple times, simply because it isn't an "ability", its an upgrade.

It's a very poor wording, and this whole mess would have been avoided if they simply had red boxed the Control Upgrades instead of green boxing.

So you use your action to pick a force power, generate your force points, and then pick which control(ability) you want to use. So if i say i want to use Force Move as my Action, then i generate Force Points then activate the control/ability i want to use. Then i have to pay any associated costs, from the base power/upgrade, as well as strength, magnitude, range, duration. Any remaining points can then be used to activate another Control or the base power.

The Control upgrades are Active talents, requiring you to actually use an action, maneuver, or incidental, and then pay an associated cost (like Strain/Force points).The Strength, Duration, Magnitude and Range upgrades are like Passive talents, they only modify other skills, talents, and abilities.

I guess well see when Donovan gets around to reading this thread tonight. I was looking at the rules and was like "****, you can use strength multiple times" but then my years of 40k tabletop rules interpretation kicked in and I started looking for exact phrasing.

Gorram rules lawyers! They have corrupted me!

Except that very careful reading of the rules (seriously i spent over half an hour poring over the Edge CRB and Age Beta) yielded some nice results. Only Controls are "abilities". Pg. 278 states "Unless specified otherwise, each ability may be activated multiple times." Now read every single entry for every upgrade. Nowhere does it state the term "ability" except in the Control upgrades. "The Force user gains the ability to". Every single Control entry. None of the Magnitude, Strength, Range, or Duration use the word ability.

That means that you can't activate the Strength on Move multiple times, simply because it isn't an "ability", its an upgrade.

It's a very poor wording, and this whole mess would have been avoided if they simply had red boxed the Control Upgrades instead of green boxing.

So you use your action to pick a force power, generate your force points, and then pick which control(ability) you want to use. So if i say i want to use Force Move as my Action, then i generate Force Points then activate the control/ability i want to use. Then i have to pay any associated costs, from the base power/upgrade, as well as strength, magnitude, range, duration. Any remaining points can then be used to activate another Control or the base power.

The Control upgrades are Active talents, requiring you to actually use an action, maneuver, or incidental, and then pay an associated cost (like Strain/Force points).The Strength, Duration, Magnitude and Range upgrades are like Passive talents, they only modify other skills, talents, and abilities.

I really have no idea what you are going on about with red boxes and active talents, but I'll play your game.

Page 283, Upgrades, first sentence. "Move's upgrades are fairly simple; they include the ability to move more objects, larger objects, and move objects greater distances."

Hmm. Upgrades are called abilities. Want to continue reading into specific terminology?

Except that very careful reading of the rules (seriously i spent over half an hour poring over the Edge CRB and Age Beta) yielded some nice results. Only Controls are "abilities". Pg. 278 states "Unless specified otherwise, each ability may be activated multiple times." Now read every single entry for every upgrade. Nowhere does it state the term "ability" except in the Control upgrades. "The Force user gains the ability to". Every single Control entry. None of the Magnitude, Strength, Range, or Duration use the word ability.

That means that you can't activate the Strength on Move multiple times, simply because it isn't an "ability", its an upgrade.

It's a very poor wording, and this whole mess would have been avoided if they simply had red boxed the Control Upgrades instead of green boxing.

So you use your action to pick a force power, generate your force points, and then pick which control(ability) you want to use. So if i say i want to use Force Move as my Action, then i generate Force Points then activate the control/ability i want to use. Then i have to pay any associated costs, from the base power/upgrade, as well as strength, magnitude, range, duration. Any remaining points can then be used to activate another Control or the base power.

The Control upgrades are Active talents, requiring you to actually use an action, maneuver, or incidental, and then pay an associated cost (like Strain/Force points).The Strength, Duration, Magnitude and Range upgrades are like Passive talents, they only modify other skills, talents, and abilities.

I really have no idea what you are going on about with red boxes and active talents, but I'll play your game.

Page 283, Upgrades, first sentence. "Move's upgrades are fairly simple; they include the ability to move more objects, larger objects, and move objects greater distances."

Hmm. Upgrades are called abilities. Want to continue reading into specific terminology?

Except that line of 283 is written as a generalized descriptor of the power, written to grant a understanding of the power as a whole and how a player can use it. Whereas if you actually look at the individual rules for each upgrade, you'll see that only the Controls are referred to as abilities. That's as specific as it gets. And look at the first paragraph for every other power. For your theory to hold true since upgrades = abilities, they should refer to abilities as well. But they don't. And in fact Influence states on pg. 281 that "However, numerous control abilities allow.." Huh. How interesting.

To everyone who is trying to house rule something that is already in the rules and literally 3 people actually read it, your fear and hatred are blinding you.

The question about activating upgrades multiple times was answered 12 pages ago. This happened because I and about 2 other people (as far as I can tell) read the preamble in the Force chapter and noticed a ruling that says you can activate an upgrade multiple times unless told otherwise. Donovon asked the designer/developer about this when I pointed this out to him in another thread, and now we have an answer.

Deal with it.

At any table I play at, I would ask that the GM follow the rules of the game, as these rules are a collective agreement between the players and the GM. Straying from them takes options away from the players and limits their actions, since they no longer have that collective understanding of thr rules.

Furthermore, as I have stated repeatedly here and on other forums, while it is fine to make a ruling on something in the absence of rules, you are not a game developer or a lawyer. You do not know the damage you are doing to the rules by constantly changing things because you are afraid of something or because you want to spite your players. By limiting Move to a silhouette of 4, or by forcing additional strain, you are acting directly against the rules that are actually quite clear on this. By doing things like this, you are creating a butterfly effect, not twining in problems.

Wow, it's pretty pompous to assume that the GM of a particular group doesn't know his own group's needs or the story he intends to tell better than game developers working in a vacuum. It's insane to me that you think a GM should flat out allow anything the rules support, full stop, because A Book Says It's Possible. I hate the Rule Zero Fallacy but I think you just stated the exact opposite of it as if a tirade about being anti-house rules is all that helpful.

Sometimes the RAW is just flat-out bad, vague, or contrary to what you want to do. Or players think up situations like pulling Star Destroyers out of the sky that are feasible by the RAW but that the devs never considered (since they can hardly consider every possible action a player could take) and thus did not balance against. The player loses on nothing if house rules are implemented clearly and non-arbitrarily, and talking like it takes something away from the players is both inane and insulting.

I don't think we need to fight.

Sometimes the RAW is just flat-out bad, vague, or contrary to what you want to do. Or players think up situations like pulling Star Destroyers out of the sky that are feasible by the RAW but that the devs never considered (since they can hardly consider every possible action a player could take) and thus did not balance against. The player loses on nothing if house rules are implemented clearly and non-arbitrarily, and talking like it takes something away from the players is both inane and insulting.

All I'm going to say is that we differ heavily on what we would consider insulting. The god complex that the GM is always right and everyone, even the game's designer, is always wrong, is what I find insulting. A GM who would pull the rug out from under their players out of fear and ignorance is what I would call insulting. The hateful rhetoric of this "Rule Zero" is what I find insulting.

If your group puts up with this, that's fine. It's not my place to judge here. But I do not stand for this kind of ignorance and abuse at my table. I am interested in the collaboration between GM and players in the creation of a story and fun memories, not the abusive and competitive attitudes of a hostile GM who sees themselves as the opposition and deathseeker of their players.

@Bipolar: I think you are pulling at straws in order to try and disprove what the designer has confirmed. And I mean that in the calmest way. "Ability" in this context is merely a word, not a game mechanic. The only mechanic referred to as "ability" are green dice in your pool. You can activate multiple upgrades and possible multiple power effects (perhaps influencing multiple emotions at once, but I'm not sure here). Any else is just reading too far into this.

Sometimes the RAW is just flat-out bad, vague, or contrary to what you want to do. Or players think up situations like pulling Star Destroyers out of the sky that are feasible by the RAW but that the devs never considered (since they can hardly consider every possible action a player could take) and thus did not balance against. The player loses on nothing if house rules are implemented clearly and non-arbitrarily, and talking like it takes something away from the players is both inane and insulting.

All I'm going to say is that we differ heavily on what we would consider insulting. The god complex that the GM is always right and everyone, even the game's designer, is always wrong, is what I find insulting. A GM who would pull the rug out from under their players out of fear and ignorance is what I would call insulting. The hateful rhetoric of this "Rule Zero" is what I find insulting.

If your group puts up with this, that's fine. It's not my place to judge here. But I do not stand for this kind of ignorance and abuse at my table. I am interested in the collaboration between GM and players in the creation of a story and fun memories, not the abusive and competitive attitudes of a hostile GM who sees themselves as the opposition and deathseeker of their players.

You're making some huge assumptions on why a GM might institute a house rule, and all of them seem to ascribe negative motives to the GM. It sounds like you've had some bad gaming experiences, but you might consider that your words make it sound as though you are the one antagonistic towards GMs that differ from you or yours (depending on if you are the GM at your table or a player).