Oh, it isn't really an issue for me. I have a force-user in my group, but I'm sure he'll be far more concerned with the new stuff he can get in F&D and not what new characters can start with.

I'm well aware. My statements were in response to the proposition of giving force-users more XP at character creation for the porposes of developing their force abilities. I oppose on the grounds that they'd already have 20 more XP to dedicate to the force versus a character who has to split their focus.

I was supporting the system being balanced as is, and against giving more XP to better fit a developed force user concept.

The system I was trying to suggest was that you have two options. The first option is that F&D characters start just like EotE and AoR characters. They wouldn't have a free FR1 or any powers unless they use their starting XP for it. The second option is that you let everyone start with extra XP so that the F&D character can have his FR and powers out of the gate but at the same time, everyone else gets to start with a little more as well.

By having those options in the book you give everyone a chance to play the character they want to play.

Nothing wrong with that. I'm not so sure F&D characters would need something like that to be fun to play, but nothing wrong with the idea.

Let's face it, insta-killing a bunch of mooks basically just saves time in what is effectively a foregone conclusion barring something extraordinary. Yes, the anti-Rival thing can be powerful, about on the level of bringing down a PC, but that in itself isn't particularly noteworthy, and the limitations on that Special Ability are perfectly reasonable in how often they can be used.

It depends a lot on scenario design. Some GMs may prefer sending minion-heavy forces out after the PCs. In large numbers, minions can be deadly. Consider a platoon of four 8-man squads of stormtroopers with sergeants as an encounter. It's a nasty force... unless one guy can wipe out 32 of the stormtroopers (and possibly a sergeant or two) with that signature ability.

just to throw a random idea out there, what with the F&D force user getting a free FR.

What if using a Lightsabre is not a skill, but a force power??

A force power costs 10 xp to purchase, yeah?? plus any upgrades like deflect, block, reflect suddenly become 5/10 xp to purchase.

Just an idea, like I said. But it seems to be a roundish peg

Cheers

Cynabar

We are talking about mechanics a lot here so I thought I would actually approach the other end which is story. Are Force powers unbalancing, seems like we have a pretty good consensus for fifty fifty saying yes or no to this question. The one thing that we seemed to have avoided discussing is or maybe the thread should include is. "Is using Force powers often appropriate?" I think the answer to that as far as mechanics is concerned is no. The reason I say this is two fold first is the dice. With the dice and lets just say one Force class for now you are very unlikely to be able to activate a power as often as you want so you simply don't. The second is the destiny pool which is a finite resource which will also influence whether or not you use a Force power upon occasion. These two mechanics give you the basis for the rules aspect.

I am now going to go all philisophical here and state that the way the movies and even the books portray force powers is simply this Don't. That is it to be perfectly honest, if your first instinct is to use a Force power stop and think about that. Honestly, it was what a GM introduced to me very early on in gaming. Unless I am playing DnD most other game systems treat magic/psychic/supernatural powers as this phenomenal cosmic power with itty bitty living space lol. The same goes with the Force. In the movies did Obi-Wan or Fisto or Mace Windu have enough power in the Force based on the mechanics to wipe out entire droid armies with minimal amount of harm to themselves? Probably. Did they often use this power? Nope. It is because the mentality got built up early on in their careers that the Force is a finite resource at best. They were brought up in a system or 'code' that using their powers was a LAST resort not the first. So for those who want to follow the Jedi code they should hardly ever use their powers. Now am I saying "Well since I won't use them often I won't waste experience on them." Nope not at all. Honestly, I am pretty sure Mace or Yoda could of taken Anakin and Ob-wan together even though in comparison to the fact that the latter two lived through a war Mace and Yoda had experience. Of course all of this is just a simple perception on my part. I have a Jedi in a Saga game a friend had been running that was crazy stupid force power built and I abused it at first then I realized my error and hardly ever use my 'powers' again except my lightsaber defense powers. It just a matter of how your GM wants to use the Force or how he perceives it honestly that will be what this comes down to in the end I guess. However, I dod suggest serious talking about how he/she would like to see the Force used in his game. Who knows maybe the GM really digs Force Unleashed 2.

bull30538 I like a lot your exposition

As I said in another post, in my games my players and myself have a moderated use of Force powers (at least in battles but not in cinematic scenes). As I told before, if Vader can disarm without "no check" (considereing FFG rules) I will use only that power on cinematic scenes like in movies or Clone Wars just because to catch the SW "feel". In my games, Vader only use Grip with minions, rivals or NPC to Coerce the players and similar, and my players respond to this choosing not to disarm Vader with an Action XDD

Until the moment we haven't seen ANY defense to Force Grip (Movies and Clone Wars inclusive). Why Dooku just don't use it and kill Obi and Anakin? Why Maul, Savage or Palpatine itself didn't use it? Because its a movie and the SW feeling! (from my point of view of course).

George Lucas prefers to put on screen a cool lightsaber duel between Jedi/Sith rather than a "a guy lift a hand while is holding and invisible soda can and a weird backgroud sound appear while someone just... well float and die" XDD

Of course a lot of people would say/prefer "if a pay 180 XP on a full Force tree... why I cannot use it?". A fair think but, not necessarely the SW feel, again, from my point of view.

Hmmm, players are well known for practicing restraint. Fluff restrictions are all well and good, but are not an answer in a game with mechanics.

bull30538 I like a lot your exposition

As I said in another post, in my games my players and myself have a moderated use of Force powers (at least in battles but not in cinematic scenes). As I told before, if Vader can disarm without "no check" (considereing FFG rules) I will use only that power on cinematic scenes like in movies or Clone Wars just because to catch the SW "feel". In my games, Vader only use Grip with minions, rivals or NPC to Coerce the players and similar, and my players respond to this choosing not to disarm Vader with an Action XDD

Until the moment we haven't seen ANY defense to Force Grip (Movies and Clone Wars inclusive). Why Dooku just don't use it and kill Obi and Anakin? Why Maul, Savage or Palpatine itself didn't use it? Because its a movie and the SW feeling! (from my point of view of course).

George Lucas prefers to put on screen a cool lightsaber duel between Jedi/Sith rather than a "a guy lift a hand while is holding and invisible soda can and a weird backgroud sound appear while someone just... well float and die" XDD

Of course a lot of people would say/prefer "if a pay 180 XP on a full Force tree... why I cannot use it?". A fair think but, not necessarely the SW feel, again, from my point of view.

Arguing that there's no defense against Force Grip because it hasn't been depicted in TCW or the movies is like arguing that no one in Star Wars goes to the bathroom because we never see a bathroom.

Clearly, people go to the bathroom, and there are defenses against Force Grip, otherwise there would be no reason for the Emperor, Dooku and Vader to even bother with lightsabers and Force Lightning.

By that train of logic, if the movies didn't use it all the time because it would basically ruin the movie- doesn't having a Force Power with NO defense ruin the game? So we add in a defense, otherwise the game would be ruined.

The "defense" against Force Grip is that you're squeezing specific organs inside somebody's neck. It takes concentration to pull that off during a battle, and most novels describe a kind of Force "bubble" trained Jedi, Sith, and Force adepts project around themselves to make stuff like Force Grip and even just Force push a lot more difficult.

Also, we've totally seen bathroom on TCW. No toilets are seen (which is good, because space toilets are incredibly complex in real life and I don't even want to think about how they'll have developed with 25,000 years time), but we've seen sinks at least. Just sayin'.

We are talking about mechanics a lot here so I thought I would actually approach the other end which is story. Are Force powers unbalancing, seems like we have a pretty good consensus for fifty fifty saying yes or no to this question. The one thing that we seemed to have avoided discussing is or maybe the thread should include is. "Is using Force powers often appropriate?" I think the answer to that as far as mechanics is concerned is no. The reason I say this is two fold first is the dice. With the dice and lets just say one Force class for now you are very unlikely to be able to activate a power as often as you want so you simply don't. The second is the destiny pool which is a finite resource which will also influence whether or not you use a Force power upon occasion. These two mechanics give you the basis for the rules aspect.

I am now going to go all philisophical here and state that the way the movies and even the books portray force powers is simply this Don't. That is it to be perfectly honest, if your first instinct is to use a Force power stop and think about that. Honestly, it was what a GM introduced to me very early on in gaming. Unless I am playing DnD most other game systems treat magic/psychic/supernatural powers as this phenomenal cosmic power with itty bitty living space lol. The same goes with the Force. In the movies did Obi-Wan or Fisto or Mace Windu have enough power in the Force based on the mechanics to wipe out entire droid armies with minimal amount of harm to themselves? Probably. Did they often use this power? Nope. It is because the mentality got built up early on in their careers that the Force is a finite resource at best. They were brought up in a system or 'code' that using their powers was a LAST resort not the first. So for those who want to follow the Jedi code they should hardly ever use their powers.

While I generally agree with you, fluff enforcement on the part of the GM is a lot harder than enforcing players following the game rules, and potentially steps over the line of "don't tell me how to play my character."

Jedi in the movies generally exercise restraint on power use, for the fluff reasons you mentioned. But I think this fluff limitation is (in part) due to (1) special effects limitations in the OT; (2) making scenes more cinematic/interesting in the PT (yes, it gets boring and viewers get jaded if every scene is wacky Force magic). In TCW, these restrictions went out the window for the most part. And holding that kind of fluff restriction to other Star Wars games like Saga almost means you have wizards who aren't allowed to cast spells much for moral reasons, and are thus playing a character who's not able to contribute as much as it might seem they could.

Still, we don't have a solid "rule" in the canon of the Jedi code that says "thou shalt not call on the Force unless thy peril is truly great." I'd be uncomfortable with telling a player "you're doing it wrong because you actually use the stuff you invested XP in." I might incentivize this notion if a player has an Oath Obligation and shows restraint in Force use, to reduce that Obligation. But I think the restrictions you mention are great when applied to non-interactive narratives like movies and books, but are either unrealistic or penalize the player for their XP expenditures when applied to an RPG.

It's called a Refresher.

Still, we don't have a solid "rule" in the canon of the Jedi code that says "thou shalt not call on the Force unless thy peril is truly great." I'd be uncomfortable with telling a player "you're doing it wrong because you actually use the stuff you invested XP in." I might incentivize this notion if a player has an Oath Obligation and shows restraint in Force use, to reduce that Obligation. But I think the restrictions you mention are great when applied to non-interactive narratives like movies and books, but are either unrealistic or penalize the player for their XP expenditures when applied to an RPG.

Yoda from ESB: "A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, NEVER for attack." There is your canon "rule".

As a GM I have no qualms having the PC's Jedi Master tell them they are doing it wrong and they must show restraint.

Still, we don't have a solid "rule" in the canon of the Jedi code that says "thou shalt not call on the Force unless thy peril is truly great." I'd be uncomfortable with telling a player "you're doing it wrong because you actually use the stuff you invested XP in." I might incentivize this notion if a player has an Oath Obligation and shows restraint in Force use, to reduce that Obligation. But I think the restrictions you mention are great when applied to non-interactive narratives like movies and books, but are either unrealistic or penalize the player for their XP expenditures when applied to an RPG.

Yoda from ESB: "A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, NEVER for attack." There is your canon "rule".

As a GM I have no qualms having the PC's Jedi Master tell them they are doing it wrong and they must show restraint.

It doesn't seem that straightforward to me.

Yoda was training Luke for the specific purpose of destroying Vader. Yoda didn't expect Luke to use the force?

Also, prequel Yoda didn't have much problem using the force to deal with dangerous situations.

If you want this interpretation of the Jedi Code in your games that's great but other tables should be free to differ without worrying about runaway mechanical inbalances.

Going back to Donovan's original post that there are already powers that in the hands of a character with a FR 4+ could be troublesome probably warrant some attention in F&D. I imagine F&D will deal with how to integrate force users and the force generally into a party and campaign.

But the solutions don't seem that onerous - if you don't want a force user throwing around x-wings doing massive damage then simply say you can't do that. To me this is highly theoretical as well. I'd be interesting in seeing a build comparison mentioned earlier in this thread demonstrating what other careers/specializations can do with the same XP cost of being a master of a given force power.

FFG StarWars is a high trust game and that is the fall back for creating the gaming experience that all can enjoy at the gaming table.

What?! There are bathrooms on SW?!?! XDD

Yep, we have to remember that SW/Clone Wars are a show with some "incoherences" that are hardly to reflect and emulate on roleplaying game.

Characters from movies are like Arrow (TV Show), he have something I call "Scenic Accuracy". He does the most awesome things but misses always to create a dramatic plot XD

SW movies/TV show is the same as Arrow, some things doesn't have a justification and sometimes are even... "WHY?! OBI-WAN, WHY!?!" XDD

So, or your GM and you agree to "success/fail" in that situations, or movies are almost imposible to emulate. Edge has the potential that is a really cinematic game, but, rules uses to go against cinematic because, as I said, its pretty hard to emulate movies based on rules.

The option we use is a "fluffy one" (I love that word, remembers me a small puppy XD) but lets us recreate those scenes that are even "ridiculous" from CW/SW and almost impossible to emulate.

Of course I will thank a lot an alternative

Jedi Ronin said exactly what I was thinking.

When you're stopping a Sith Lord from destroying planets, I'd call that using the Force for "defense". Keep in mind Yoda already saw what happened to Luke's father. He was basically reinforcing the notion that Jedi are "keepers of the peace, NOT soldiers" as Master Windu put it. In other words; only use violence to REDUCE violence, and try every other available option first. (Assuming other options are indeed available, which in Yoda's view wasn't the case with Vader/Sidious.)

Another thing to keep in mind: the Jedi Code is WIDE OPEN to interpretation. See: Revan, Qui-Gon Jinn, Anakin Skywalker, Ahsoka Tano, and numerous others over the years. Jedi come in all shapes and sizes. The idea that each and every one of them cleaves to the exact same moral code without variance is, frankly, a reflection of how gnostic theists view their own religions in real life. Jedi, meanwhile, are as often agnostic theists as they are gnostic theists (google the terms if you're unfamiliar).

It's interesting how Yoda's words about "knowledge and defense" keep getting brought up, even after all these years, as "solid proof" that Jedi should be utterly passive hermits that don't do anything that could even remotely be deemed as "offensive." Then again, Yoda's had 20+ years to stew over the fact that the entire Jedi Order got duped and wiped out by the manipulations of a single Sith Lord, so a tad bitter he might be, concluding that because the Jedi took a very active stance in the Clone Wars they were blinded to the true threat until it was much, much too late.

Personally, I've taken those words to be more along the lines of "don't go looking to start a fight, but if the fight finds you, then finish it." Luke learned this one the hard way by rushing off to Cloud City; in effect he went looking for a fight. Contrast his actions and behavior in RotJ. In Jabba's palace, while he was pretty sure things were going to end in violence, the option was always there for Jabba to agree to barter for Han's life, and perhaps even release Leia and the droids as well. To quote Mr. Garibaldi, "I never start a conversation unless I know where it's going, but I always leave room for someone to disappoint me," difference being that Luke wasn't anywhere close to being as cynical as B5's chief of security.

As for Luke "killing Vader," I remember reading an article about how Zen Masters would often pose a contradicting statement to their students, akin to Obi-Wan's "only a Sith deals in absolutes" (which was itself an absolute). Note that neither Yoda or Ben every said "kill" but rather that Luke had to confront Vader. It was Luke (and to an extent the audience) that presumed confront = kill/destroy. In the end, Luke did confront Vader, but achieved victory through an unorthodox means by getting Anakin to "wake up" from the walking nightmare that was his life as the Emperor's chief flunky.

In the novelization for RotS, there's a point where the author goes into what Yoda is thinking during his fight with Sidious, and comes to the conclusion that he simply can't win, that the Jedi had failed to evolve while the Sith had changed over the millennia. Perhaps that realization fed into him and Obi-Wan telling Luke simply "you have to confront Vader," and the hope that this child of the Chosen One would find a way to succeed where centuries of Jedi dogma had failed.

In some of the earlier EU (prior to the prequel films and NJO series), there were points where Luke did seem to be drifting towards becoming something of a reclusive hermit, at one point even being called out by Mon Mothma about the bad example he was setting for his Jedi students by removing himself from the galaxy; in hindsight it's possible she remembered the Jedi Order from before the Empire and how they were fairly reclusive in the view of the populace at large, so she might have wanted to prevent that sort of mindset from taking place by ensuring this new Jedi Order's leader set a better precedent by not being a recluse.

It's interesting how Yoda's words about "knowledge and defense" keep getting brought up, even after all these years, as "solid proof" that Jedi should be utterly passive hermits that don't do anything that could even remotely be deemed as "offensive." Then again, Yoda's had 20+ years to stew over the fact that the entire Jedi Order got duped and wiped out by the manipulations of a single Sith Lord, so a tad bitter he might be, concluding that because the Jedi took a very active stance in the Clone Wars they were blinded to the true threat until it was much, much too late.

Personally, I've taken those words to be more along the lines of "don't go looking to start a fight, but if the fight finds you, then finish it." Luke learned this one the hard way by rushing off to Cloud City; in effect he went looking for a fight. Contrast his actions and behavior in RotJ. In Jabba's palace, while he was pretty sure things were going to end in violence, the option was always there for Jabba to agree to barter for Han's life, and perhaps even release Leia and the droids as well. To quote Mr. Garibaldi, "I never start a conversation unless I know where it's going, but I always leave room for someone to disappoint me," difference being that Luke wasn't anywhere close to being as cynical as B5's chief of security.

As for Luke "killing Vader," I remember reading an article about how Zen Masters would often pose a contradicting statement to their students, akin to Obi-Wan's "only a Sith deals in absolutes" (which was itself an absolute). Note that neither Yoda or Ben every said "kill" but rather that Luke had to confront Vader. It was Luke (and to an extent the audience) that presumed confront = kill/destroy. In the end, Luke did confront Vader, but achieved victory through an unorthodox means by getting Anakin to "wake up" from the walking nightmare that was his life as the Emperor's chief flunky.

In the novelization for RotS, there's a point where the author goes into what Yoda is thinking during his fight with Sidious, and comes to the conclusion that he simply can't win, that the Jedi had failed to evolve while the Sith had changed over the millennia. Perhaps that realization fed into him and Obi-Wan telling Luke simply "you have to confront Vader," and the hope that this child of the Chosen One would find a way to succeed where centuries of Jedi dogma had failed.

In some of the earlier EU (prior to the prequel films and NJO series), there were points where Luke did seem to be drifting towards becoming something of a reclusive hermit, at one point even being called out by Mon Mothma about the bad example he was setting for his Jedi students by removing himself from the galaxy; in hindsight it's possible she remembered the Jedi Order from before the Empire and how they were fairly reclusive in the view of the populace at large, so she might have wanted to prevent that sort of mindset from taking place by ensuring this new Jedi Order's leader set a better precedent by not being a recluse.

You make a lot of interesting points.

However, in RotJ:

I think Luke's approach to Vader was a very Jedi approach to take but it seems like Yoda and Obi-wan definitely wanted Luke to destroy him (and using Obi-wan's own logic against him Luke did destroy Vader - by redeeming Anakin).

I've also wondered what exactly "The Plan" was. Luke was thrown into Obi-wan's path by events. Obi-wan took the opportunity to begin training Luke but he didn't appear to have much of a plan.

er tell them they are doing it wrong and they must show restraint.

It doesn't seem that straightforward to me.

Yoda was training Luke for the specific purpose of destroying Vader. Yoda didn't expect Luke to use the force?

Also, prequel Yoda didn't have much problem using the force to deal with dangerous situations.

If you want this interpretation of the Jedi Code in your games that's great but other tables should be free to differ without worrying about runaway mechanical inbalances.

The scene where Yoda dies, we see Luke being given the task to confront Vader. I think it's telling that the wording is not "destroy" or "kill". This is pivotal because the confrontation in the throne room is not about destruction; it is about Luke facing fear and the choices he makes. The fact that he chooses not to destroy Vader, is kind of the point.

To be short-winded about "prequel Yoda", let's just say that Lucas ruined the most interesting character in the SW universe.

I don't think anyone is implying that all tables should follow the same house rules.

I'm not sure many of you remember the show Kung Fu (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068093/) but I've always kinda thought of Jedi as being a cross between this kind of Monk and a Medieval Knight Errant, not quite Eastern or Western but a cross of the two. For those of you that are too young to have seen this show (it was the early 70's) I think it gives a good representation of a kind of essentially good warrior and how he dealt with the use of violence to achieving a positive goal. I'd recommend it for people wanting to play a Jedi not because Kwai Chang Caine is exactly what a Jedi is but because of how he deals with moral issues and violence. Plus I'm pretty sure this show influenced GL when he was thinking of what Jedi and the Jedi order were.

And note that in that bit of dialogue between Luke and Ben's ghost, it's Luke that says "kill," having assumed that was the only outcome of them squaring off for another duel. Again keeping with the notion of avoiding the dogmatic approach that got the Jedi and the galaxy in the current mess it was in, Ben never confirmed that's what Luke was supposed to do, with his response being more to the idea that Luke has given up, though again he's bound to have some traces of bitterness over how badly he'd failed Anakin as a teacher, but it could also be a way of giving Luke some subtle caution to not think that turning his father back to the light would be an easy task.

From some of what I've read about the Yoda episodes of Clone Wars Season 6, it's entirely possibly that Luke's training was one big Batman Gambit on Yoda's part, as he'd chosen to play the long game, and perhaps trusted that the Force would provide "another Skywalker" (with the faint sounds of a baby crying in the background) the means to removing the threat of the Sith. By stressing the "confront" part, Yoda left the resolution of that confrontation open for Luke to dictate. After all, Yoda went to directly face and kill Darth Sidious, and look where it got him. Perhaps it was Yoda's way to encouraging Luke to keep an open mind and not focus on a single resolution, but doing so in a way that helped his last student's growth and understanding. it's one thing to show a student the proper answer, but another to allow the student come to the proper answer on their own, thus enabling them to put that understanding to use in situations outside the context of the original problem. It wasn't until he was at the very cusp of falling to the dark side that Luke finally "got it" and understood the lesson that Yoda and even Ben were trying to teach.

I'm not sure many of you remember the show Kung Fu (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068093/) but I've always kinda thought of Jedi as being a cross between this kind of Monk and a Medieval Knight Errant, not quite Eastern or Western but a cross of the two. For those of you that are too young to have seen this show (it was the early 70's) I think it gives a good representation of a kind of essentially good warrior and how he dealt with the use of violence to achieving a positive goal. I'd recommend it for people wanting to play a Jedi not because Kwai Chang Caine is exactly what a Jedi is but because of how he deals with moral issues and violence. Plus I'm pretty sure this show influenced GL when he was thinking of what Jedi and the Jedi order were.

Well, Lucas did admit to drawing upon both the samurai and Eastern philosophy (including the Shaolin Monks) when coming up with the Jedi way back in the 70's.

During the Dark Times and Rebellion Era, any surviving Jedi would fall into "knight errant" simply due to not having the organizational resources and backing of the Jedi Order, though any truly active Jedi would need to stay on the move simply to avoid drawing too much Imperial attention. Be interesting to see how SW: Rebels deals with this when Kanan opts to start acting more like the Jedi Knight that he was.

We can go back and forth all day about how to interpret the dialogue and which sources are "canon" etc.

As with a lot of elements of the setting people can find reasons to interpret it a particular way.

I tend to take Obi-wan at his word in that scene. Luke says he can't kill Vader and Obi-wan says that means the Emperor has already won. I'm not saying that Obi-wan was instructing Luke that killing Vader was the ONLY solution but it clearly seems Obi-wan's view that not being willing to will cause Luke to fail. In the same scene Obi-wan is trying to convince Luke that Anakin no longer exists - that Darth Vader is all there is. It seems clear - to me - that Obi-wan believes the Emperor will use any hope Luke has for his father as a weapon to turn Luke to the dark side.

Luke finds another way but it's not a leap to say that Obi-wan is highly skeptical of success outside of actually destroying Vader.

I agree that Lucas drew on a lot of Eastern influences for constructing the Jedi philosophy.

The training scene with Luke where Yoda tells Luke to clear his mind of questions is a good example.

I'm not sure many of you remember the show Kung Fu (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068093/) but I've always kinda thought of Jedi as being a cross between this kind of Monk and a Medieval Knight Errant, not quite Eastern or Western but a cross of the two. For those of you that are too young to have seen this show (it was the early 70's) I think it gives a good representation of a kind of essentially good warrior and how he dealt with the use of violence to achieving a positive goal. I'd recommend it for people wanting to play a Jedi not because Kwai Chang Caine is exactly what a Jedi is but because of how he deals with moral issues and violence. Plus I'm pretty sure this show influenced GL when he was thinking of what Jedi and the Jedi order were.

Well, Lucas did admit to drawing upon both the samurai and Eastern philosophy (including the Shaolin Monks) when coming up with the Jedi way back in the 70's.

During the Dark Times and Rebellion Era, any surviving Jedi would fall into "knight errant" simply due to not having the organizational resources and backing of the Jedi Order, though any truly active Jedi would need to stay on the move simply to avoid drawing too much Imperial attention. Be interesting to see how SW: Rebels deals with this when Kanan opts to start acting more like the Jedi Knight that he was.

The Clone Wars Season 6 stuff with Yoda is very interesting. I wont spoil anything but it does introduce a new approach Yoda takes in dealing with the problem of the Sith.

I've also wondered what exactly "The Plan" was. Luke was thrown into Obi-wan's path by events. Obi-wan took the opportunity to begin training Luke but he didn't appear to have much of a plan.

Perhaps they got "The Plan" from the same guy that sold a similarly named work to the Cylons...