I'm done discussing this with you. You play a Star Wars game but something straight out of the first Star Wars game is now a Michael Bay element? This is just getting silly.

Get real. Are you telling me George Lucas meant to imply that R2D2 actually did something from afar to make the other droid spit smoke?

I am telling you that "the player" has a meta talent that allows him to give a twist to the narration that is about as much a Deus Ex Machina as the scene in A New Hope was. You seem to be stuck in a "the character needs to blablabla"-mindset which (obviously) is not what this talent is about.

I don't object the basic concept of player agency, but it has to involve PC agency.

Why????

I don't object the basic concept of player agency, but it has to involve PC agency. I'd even settle for retroactive PC agency if it's narrated well.

Honestly I always imagined that R2 did sabotage, not just that astromech, but all the ones on the sandcrawler in easily repairable ways so that he would be purchased and have a chance to find Kenobi ASAP.

That's what I meant by "retroactive PC agency", and I was thinking along the same lines. There is character and motive and story in your example, so that would work for me. The other examples given so far don't include any of that. Reminds me of South Park: Imaginationland, when they're interviewing Michael Bay:

"Those aren't ideas, those are special effects!"

"I ... don't understand the difference..."

Or like the much vaunted talent that lets the medic simply rewind time and make a critical not happen? What do you mean your arm got shot off "*Ahem* It's not that bad." *rolls* "See, your arm is still there."

I believe that talent requires the medic to at least treat the wound to determine that it isn't as bad as it first seemed.

I'm AWB, but I could've sworn INTB has no distance limitation. You have to roll it when the crit happens. It would be ridiculous to require the Medic to be Engaged with the person who just received a crit. If they had to be Engaged then the party would swarm around the Medic in a protective doughnut each session until someone gets a crit bad enough for INTB. The talent gets to be awesome and not have a range and “rewrite history” because it is a once per session talent.

Which, honestly this is how we fluff all damage. When my character gets shot up and is at Wound Threshold, I envision that the blaster shots were through his important parts and that he’s near death. After the Medic looks at him, applies stimpacks and a Medicine roll to remove all wounds, I envision that my character realized that the blaster shots were just grazes and flesh wounds. Nothing that a few bandages couldn’t fix.

To recap: there are so many examples of the narrative system that don’t “make sense” in the traditional Role Playing sense. That’s the point of this system. Bad Motivator points out a fault in a system. It’s Not That Bad allows a Medic to stop a crit from across the room. Schrödinger's Utility Belt holds every small item in the game until you run out of Destiny points to retrieve items. On the rare occasion when a gun does actually run out of ammo, the Extra Reloads item or Spare Clip talent never does.

I'm AFB as well. I don't recall a range, but I do recall that the Medic had until the end of the round to negate the crit. So, Bob's arm get's shot off at the beginning of the round, you can re-tell the story so that it wasn't. If it happens at the end of the round, Bob is SOL.

They're all great talents that let the players have direct input into the story. It's a new paradigm and hard for a lot of people to wrap they're heads around. Things like that are normally the pervue of the GM, so giving the players access directly to the story is hard for a lot of GMs to accept at first.

They're all great talents that let the players have direct input into the story. It's a new paradigm and hard for a lot of people to wrap they're heads around. Things like that are normally the pervue of the GM, so giving the players access directly to the story is hard for a lot of GMs to accept at first.

One small thing that doesn't sit well with me about these particular talents (my liking them in general not withstanding) is that they are completely passive player-agency abilities, but that only a character with that niche focus can use them. Why is it only a mechanic can "decide" a piece of tech in the world is about to break? If that makes sense...

Wow, some people really hate collaborative roleplay. Likening a Talent that let's PC's do something fun (with GM consent) to a Michael Bay movie? C'mon.

Anyhoo, this Talent isn't any different to the 1 Advantage combat result of "Notice something important about the battle." (Chart, p.206)

Do you make the PC who rolled the Advantage perform another action to cause the weak point they just noticed on the attack speeder?

For that matter, when a player describes something awesome happening with a Triumph do you as GM begin arguing that they are stepping into Michael Bay territory because the space sword adventure isn't realistic enough?

This is a narrative, collaborative game with mechanical crunch. It's not OD&D. I think a lot of people can't wrap their heads around that.

(I think it's the exact same reason that a lot of people don't "get" the space combat parts... or complain that PC's can kill minions that weren't engaged with him but belong to the same group, etc. You can tell by all the Houseruling Weapon Specializations, or Houseruling Differences between Blasters and Slugthrower type threads that people aren't getting the narrative nature of the game.)

Wow, some people really hate collaborative roleplay. Likening a Talent that let's PC's do something fun (with GM consent) to a Michael Bay movie? C'mon.

Anyhoo, this Talent isn't any different to the 1 Advantage combat result of "Notice something important about the battle." (Chart, p.206)

Do you make the PC who rolled the Advantage perform another action to cause the weak point they just noticed on the attack speeder?

For that matter, when a player describes something awesome happening with a Triumph do you as GM begin arguing that they are stepping into Michael Bay territory because the space sword adventure isn't realistic enough?

This is a narrative, collaborative game with mechanical crunch. It's not OD&D. I think a lot of people can't wrap their heads around that.

(I think it's the exact same reason that a lot of people don't "get" the space combat parts... or complain that PC's can kill minions that weren't engaged with him but belong to the same group, etc. You can tell by all the Houseruling Weapon Specializations, or Houseruling Differences between Blasters and Slugthrower type threads that people aren't getting the narrative nature of the game.)

Indeed! I wouldn't suggest Fiasco to a lot of people on these boards....

Wow, some people really hate collaborative roleplay. Likening a Talent that let's PC's do something fun (with GM consent) to a Michael Bay movie? C'mon.

Er, that's not at all what I said, in fact I said I like the collaborative impact. I'm not 1000% enamoured with how some people describe using it, but that's not the same thing at all.

Why be disingenuous?

He is not.

It is pretty clear what your point was and it had nothing to do with anyone's description.

In fact, the whole Michael Bay thing came up because I told you why I thought RAW was awesome WITHOUT giving any descrition whatsoever.

So if you want to talk disingenuous...

Indeed! I wouldn't suggest Fiasco to a lot of people on these boards....

Actually, you started this BS. You decided something was "awesome" and anyone who couldn't see that was deficient in some way. Well, you can expect a reaction, not everyone shares your sense of "awesome".

That doesn't mean people who don't agree with your sense of awesome don't accept the basic premise of player injection of storytelling. Seriously, WTF.

Indeed! I wouldn't suggest Fiasco to a lot of people on these boards....

Actually, you started this BS. You decided something was "awesome" and anyone who couldn't see that was deficient in some way. Well, you can expect a reaction, not everyone shares your sense of "awesome".

That doesn't mean people who don't agree with your sense of awesome don't accept the basic premise of player injection of storytelling. Seriously, WTF.

I suggest you to go back to page 1 of this exchange and really read my point of view expressed numerous times over the 6 pages this topic now is. It is unbelievable that I am now made out as the bad guy in this scenario when I have stated numerous times that eventhough I like the RAW I think everyone should do what suits their table. It might not be "for me" but ti each his own, however slacking people of or calling their games (and I paraphrase) Michael Bayesque and then wanting to play the victim of being engaged in a discussion YOU started and where you (mind you, not me) talked down about other people's games is the limit. I told you once I was done discussing this with you and I am now strenghtened in that descission.

You have a bad 'motivator' for sure.

I suggest you to go back to page 1 of this exchange and really read my point of view expressed numerous times over the 6 pages this topic now is. It is unbelievable that I am now made out as the bad guy in this scenario when I have stated numerous times that eventhough I like the RAW I think everyone should do what suits their table. It might not be "for me" but ti each his own, however slacking people of or calling their games (and I paraphrase) Michael Bayesque and then wanting to play the victim of being engaged in a discussion YOU started and where you (mind you, not me) talked down about other people's games is the limit. I told you once I was done discussing this with you and I am now strenghtened in that descission.

You have a bad 'motivator' for sure.

Hmm, I seem to be mistaken. I distinctly recall someone saying something to the effect of "well if you can't see that is awesome, then nobody can help you"...but I must be crossing threads because you're right, you didn't say that. Maybe you did in another thread, or perhaps it was part of the "edited for rudeness" post...or it was someone else in another thread that I thought was you. I can't find it now, so I apologize for that misrepresentation.

And you're right, I did not need to resort to the MB reference. I really don't like your example of this Talent use *at all*, but I didn't need to be rude about it. My rudeness was misinformed by my misinterpretation above...vicious spiral, etc. So I apologize for that too.

But you aren't doing yourself any favours by painting my rejection of your sense of awesome as a wholesale rejection of the narrative mechanic, which is what both you and Grimmshade have now done. So out of one side of your keyboard you're saying "do what you want at your table" and out of the other you're saying "wow, you can't even wrap your head around narrative roleplay". That's not exactly honest, and is pretty condescending. But I'll forgive the condescension in light of the MB reference...

Anyway, I've been pretty clear about accepting the general use of the Talent. I've "liked" posts by people on both sides of this argument because they presented them well. I just reserve the right to decide what is "awesome" and what is not at my table. And actually, I probably wouldn't need such guidelines...I know my players and they wouldn't allow it amongst themselves, so I probably wouldn't have to say anything.

The only thing I edited out off anything was the word "Whiney" because it was unbecoming. Also I was not talking about you personally, and it the same time it is entirely possible to say "I think you should be doing at your table what you like" and at the same tim e feel that you indeed cannot seem to wrap your head around a certain aspect of the game. Because, let's be honest here, it sure seems like you can't. That doesn't make your game any less valid then mine byt the way, but when you decide that you can make general assumptions about the games I run based on a (perfectly viable for the talent) example I wrote down as an illustration in 5 seconds, that never happened at my table by the way, then I guess /i am not the only one that pushed the enveloppe a bit.

As I said before, twice now, I am done arguing with you over this.

The only thing I edited out off anything was the word "Whiney" because it was unbecoming. Also I was not talking about you personally, and it the same time it is entirely possible to say "I think you should be doing at your table what you like" and at the same tim e feel that you indeed cannot seem to wrap your head around a certain aspect of the game. Because, let's be honest here, it sure seems like you can't. That doesn't make your game any less valid then mine byt the way, but when you decide that you can make general assumptions about the games I run based on a (perfectly viable for the talent) example I wrote down as an illustration in 5 seconds, that never happened at my table by the way, then I guess /i am not the only one that pushed the enveloppe a bit.

As I said before, twice now, I am done arguing with you over this.

Apology accepted...

I suggest you to go back to page 1 of this exchange and really read my point of view expressed numerous times over the 6 pages this topic now is. It is unbelievable that I am now made out as the bad guy in this scenario when I have stated numerous times that eventhough I like the RAW I think everyone should do what suits their table. It might not be "for me" but ti each his own, however slacking people of or calling their games (and I paraphrase) Michael Bayesque and then wanting to play the victim of being engaged in a discussion YOU started and where you (mind you, not me) talked down about other people's games is the limit. I told you once I was done discussing this with you and I am now strenghtened in that descission.

You have a bad 'motivator' for sure.

Hmm, I seem to be mistaken. I distinctly recall someone saying something to the effect of "well if you can't see that is awesome, then nobody can help you"...but I must be crossing threads because you're right, you didn't say that. Maybe you did in another thread, or perhaps it was part of the "edited for rudeness" post...or it was someone else in another thread that I thought was you. I can't find it now, so I apologize for that misrepresentation.

And you're right, I did not need to resort to the MB reference. I really don't like your example of this Talent use *at all*, but I didn't need to be rude about it. My rudeness was misinformed by my misinterpretation above...vicious spiral, etc. So I apologize for that too.

But you aren't doing yourself any favours by painting my rejection of your sense of awesome as a wholesale rejection of the narrative mechanic, which is what both you and Grimmshade have now done. So out of one side of your keyboard you're saying "do what you want at your table" and out of the other you're saying "wow, you can't even wrap your head around narrative roleplay". That's not exactly honest, and is pretty condescending. But I'll forgive the condescension in light of the MB reference...

Anyway, I've been pretty clear about accepting the general use of the Talent. I've "liked" posts by people on both sides of this argument because they presented them well. I just reserve the right to decide what is "awesome" and what is not at my table. And actually, I probably wouldn't need such guidelines...I know my players and they wouldn't allow it amongst themselves, so I probably wouldn't have to say anything.

The nothing I can say will make you see th at as awesome line was me. I apologize if that was found offensive. I was trying to say that I have a different opinion I what I think is "awesome" than you. My comments about "... nothing I say..." was my way of saying we have differences of taste and that arguing about the would be pointless. Again I am sorry if I offended.

The nothing I can say will make you see th at as awesome line was me. I apologize if that was found offensive. I was trying to say that I have a different opinion I what I think is "awesome" than you. My comments about "... nothing I say..." was my way of saying we have differences of taste and that arguing about the would be pointless. Again I am sorry if I offended.

No worries, sorry for helping heat up the thread. It was very useful, for me anyway, despite the heat.