Ah... another sociologist?

Now, whether or not there's a "social" right or "natural" right for anyone to create and claim some sort of part or "ownership" over a story or not, falls in a vastly different category than whether or not there's a legal right.

it's still not canon

it might be your canon, but that's only relevant to you and perhaps your players. If that's all that matter, then there's no point discussing it, no one can prevent you from doing that, whereas Disney and LF can scratch all of that literary faecal flotsam and replace it with something else.

Not sure if this has come up (may have missed it) but I posit a potential reason for the use of three compatible cores.

Back in the wotc days of the license, back in the 2000-2005 days, they had IIRC a restriction in their license that they could only produce 4 books per year related to the RPG. That was a single quarterly release. Now, looking back at the release schedule for EotE, this was about the release rate for those books over the last year and a half, or so.

When the first rebellion splat was announced, I was concerned that it would mean that an edge book wouldn't come out Q4 but then the hutt book was announced.

"What's the point?" you ask? Well, lets say that FFG's license prevents them from issuing more than one book per quarter, per game line. So rolling out the Cores as three separate games may give them more latitude regarding releases, and allow them to tailor their output better than making the system a single core release.

I have not knowledge of the FFG-lucas licensing arrangements. But if these are in anyway similar, then I would not surprised if something like this plays into the decision a little.

I, for one, found this post interesting.

That's crazy talk - it's his **** universe.

To be fair, it's not his universe anymore. He sold it to Disney for a few billion dollars. It's Disney's universe now, and has been for two years.

I won't speak for T3CHN0Shaman, but I was always of the opinion (and it's just that- nothing more) that if you allow others to contribute to a creative work of yours, you're surrendering at least a portion of your creative control to those individuals. Please don't misunderstand, until the sale of Lucasfilm, all legal rights and control belonged firmly to George Lucas. I don't think anyone's trying to argue that point.

From a creative standpoint, however, the Star Wars universe hasn't been George Lucas' private playground for a very long time. Prior to the Purge of April 25th, 2014, a significant piece of the Star Wars universe (again, from a creative standpoint) belonged to Timothy Zahn. Another to A. C. Crispin, and still another to the authors at West End Games. Yes, the setting was created (or assembled from parts shamelessly stolen from elsewhere, depending on your perspective) by George Lucas, and many of the characters and ideas are his, but many more have been contributed by other people.

Some of the creative work done by those people was terrible. I'm certainly no fan of Barbara Hambly or Kevin J. Anderson. I know many people have strong negative feelings about Karen Traviss. But while I can't speak for everyone, I don't think people are upset that Lucas and his minions have decided to throw the Zahn baby out with the Force Unleashed bathwater in some nefarious plot to offend the True Fans. Rather, they're upset that Disney voided a very real agreement that all official Star Wars stories were contributing to the same universe. The collaborative universe that so many of us have invested so much into for so long has now been relegated to alternate-universe territory. It's the idea that the handful of stories that they do love and cherish are now scoffed at by so-called "purists" as "non-canon," or "fan-fiction."

I understand why it was done. I don't necessarily like the way it was done, but I understand it. Disney wanted to have the creative freedom to do what they wanted without being shackled to the creative works of those that have come before. (I really, really want to like the new movies. I hope I do.) While the canon police aren't going to come to my house and arrest me for having non-sanctioned Star Wars books on my shelf, it does mean that from now on, the "official" version of Kessel is going to totally conflict with the one that I've grown to love.

But then again, that's one of the reasons why I love RPGs so much. I can use what I like, and ignore what I don't. Generally, I ignore anything from The Clone Wars, and I'll likely ignore everything from the Rebels show as well. Other people ignore other things. So far, FFG has been really good about what they've chosen to include in their products, and I personally am quite thankful that they don't seem to be bound by the idea that "non-canon" is off-limits.

Anyway, I'm rambling and the Back-On-Topic Ewok is getting angry.

Yes, please. I didn't mean for what was largely a statement of personal preference to derail the whole thread! XD

Ah... another sociologist?

I think that word means something else to you than it does to me...

Well, you started to talk about how this whole thing was a sociological notion (of yours.) So, sure, it might be you understand it as something different, but there's nothing inherently wrong with that. It comes across as flimsy philosophy anyway (I know, I've been guilty of it a number of times.)

it's still not canon

What is canon? Or rather, what gives one authority to determine what is canon? It would not seem to be inherent, but rather the result of authority bestowed by consensus.

Canon is what the Story Group at LF decides is canon, their authority is given by Disney's legal ownership of LF and the franchise - now whether or not you agree with that is largely irrelevant (to anyone but you of course.) You are posing a flimsy social philosophical question - it's quaint and interesting on a largely childish level. The only real meaningful consensus involved in the establishment of canon is between the story group and the creators of licensed stories - so yeah, sure, it's a consensus thing, but it's also very much a consensus regulated by jurisprudence, not fans, fan fictions, nerd rage and other similar silliness. So, there's "consensus" and there's consensus. Applying a basic (everyday) term or concept like you're doing here is a fun exercise, but any meaningful application of a term needs premisses, clearly formed and transparent premisses of what you mean and intend to mean by using the term. So what is consensus to you? How procedural and temporary is it? Is it in constant flux? And also, how deterministic are you about it's consequences or how it's constituted? I mean, some operationalization is needed when you put so much emphasis on this... at least it would be more helpful than just throwing it about as if it's self-explanatory.

So why (unless referred to by canon sources) - it might be your canon, but that's only relevant to you and perhaps your players. If that's all that matter, then there's no point discussing it, no one can prevent you from doing that, whereas Disney and LF can scratch all of that literary faecal flotsam and replace it with something else.

I object to that assertion (I think? It was a little hard to follow, sorry). The fact that we engage in such discussions at all shows that people enjoy it but they also internalize things from those discussions thus slowly and surely moving the consensus. I reject Disney, LF or anyone else's right to tell me what is objectively true about the Star Wars universe. Share a story; convince me your version is better. :-)

(First you miss quote me here... that's nice )

Well, I reject your right to reject anyone else's right, and how far have we come? Nowhere. That's a silly statement you have there. Enjoying something doesn't necessarily make it meaningful, people enjoy hyperbole and naysaying for the sake of it - but that doesn't necessarily make it meaningful to them or others (and if intersubjectivity is the concept supposed to form some basic consensus on language, meaning is as much (if not more) a social and collective product than an individual one, right? I mean, even the notion of an individual is dependant upon a collective right?) I try not to be deterministic about my theoretical concepts and views (I fail a lot of the time) and your focus on consensus is fun, but ultimately basic and limited.

Now, what is and isn't "objectively" true about Star Wars or anything social? That's not what's being discussed here, nor what you're really aiming at with this. I mean, and I'm probably presumptuous here, I get the feeling you're not really up for any notion of "objective" social reality - at least I'm not. It's intersubjective, and there are power relations (usually asymmetrical) and the authority to define. Consensus - at least one based on larger populations or communities - have little say in matters when it comes to define and determine what is and isn't true or accepted. If there is a consensus at all in this, it's centred on a smaller collective of people (a power elite if you will). Now that doesn't mean, as we know, that it will be accepted by the larger population, i.e. "everyone": People are still fighting over which god (or collective of gods) is the best and true one... or what levels of SW canon is right or not, or whether the story group idea is good or bad, but these matters are of little consequence in any "objective" sense. Basically, consensus is a limited term, there's also the authority to define as given by law and the institutionalisation of norms and notions of ownership, it establishes a hegemony, a power relation in the public (or in this case fanboy) discourse. Of course, discourses change over time, but this is largely not based on consensus or agreement (but it can factor in of course), but knowledge-power relations, governmentality and so on.

I'll agree with the notion that Star Wars has become more than what Lucas made, that the universe he created has become a playground for many other storytellers, both good and bad. Be it licensed stories or unlicensed fan fiction (and star wars rpg campaigns or one-shots). There is a hierarchy though, there always is - and always will be as long as we subscribe to notions such as ownership. This hierarchy tells us what is legal, official canon - there is no such thing as a "true" or "objective" canon, but such deconstruction is ultimately meaningless, because as we know extreme relativism is a dead end (unless you know what you're doing and thinking, and frankly most people don't when it comes to this area of philosophy and social theory.)

So, you're free to reject what is official canon, but it is still official canon no matter how much you reject it or try to put other prerequisites down for what qualifies as "objectively true Star Wars" based on some idea about "quality" that you have; a good story doesn't make it true or objective or more official canon. It may fit into your personal canon, sure. But why should anyone want to or have to convince you of anything really? Regardless of your "radicalism," the consensus you're so infatuated with does not seem to agree with your position (but you're right that continued discourse changes the consensus, but therefore the consensus is fluid, in flux and never static, which means that it's makes little sense to state one way or another whether or not the consensus agrees with the LF story group, extreme fanboy fetishism or whatever else) - not that these boards in any way are indicative or representative enough to make a meaningful and useful assumption on the matter.

Aaaaanyway. Derail complete.

I for one think it's good they made three different games simply just because, and I reject anyone else's right to tell me why it's not.

Oh, so you have seen the Ewok Adventure movies too?

But... ewoks are so cute!

And Jar Jar was not as universally hated as you all seem to think!!!

I have no clue what the German existential directing style shot on black and white 8 film stock etc. even is!!! omg.. I don't even know what to Google!

And Jar Jar was not as universally hated as you all seem to think!!!

I have no clue what the German existential directing style shot on black and white 8 film stock etc. even is!!! omg.. I don't even know what to Google!

Actually I made my peace with Jar-Jar years ago. Not my favorite character, but he's far from the anit-christ that everyone makes him out to be.

As for the rest - well, as film stock goes, the larger the film, the less grainy it looks (and of course the more expensive it is). So if you shoot something in 70 millimeter, it's going to look big and fabulous - so epic movies in the 50s and 60s were shot on it - movies like Ben Hur and South Pacific or It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World loved the format.

Most Hollywood movies would be shot on on 35mm and lower budget independent films would shoot 16 mm - and look grainier and more 'harsh', for lack of a better term, as a result. 8mm was also the consumer standard - when the mom and pops of the world shot the family vacations to Disneyland in the 70's, 8mm was probably what they shot it on. (And actually I cant think of any mainstream or independent flicks that were shot on 8mm)

As for German film style - oh boy. You could make a college career out of explaining that. It's a style that involves large shapes of bright, unrealistic colors contrasting with dark ones - almost cartoon-like, but not quite. Buildings would lean or sag, the ground would be tilted up steeply, hard shadows would be everywhere. The films of Werner Herzog and Fritz Lang were famous for it. The most recent director I could think of that you might know of - early Tim Burton, around the time of Batman and Edward Scissorhands, is very much influenced by the German expressionist film style.

That help?

Aaaaanyway. Derail complete.

And Jar Jar was not as universally hated as you all seem to think!!!

I have no clue what the German existential directing style shot on black and white 8 film stock etc. even is!!! omg.. I don't even know what to Google!

Oh, so you have seen the Ewok Adventure movies too?

But... ewoks are so cute!

And Jar Jar was not as universally hated as you all seem to think!!!

I have no clue what the German existential directing style shot on black and white 8 film stock etc. even is!!! omg.. I don't even know what to Google!

Yup, they are cute little critters that most likely ate a bunch of dead or captured storm-troopers after the battle on Endor. Never trust an Ewok.

I never mentioned Jar Jar, but I made my peace with that horrible character after reading the quite excellent Darths & Droids .

So why (unless referred to by canon sources) - it might be your canon, but that's only relevant to you and perhaps your players. If that's all that matter, then there's no point discussing it, no one can prevent you from doing that, whereas Disney and LF can scratch all of that literary faecal flotsam and replace it with something else.

(First you miss quote me here... that's nice )

Regardless, that's the only part I care to respond to. If you're going to insist that legal rights give social rights (instead of being entirely a financial protection) then I don't think you and I have much left to talk about. Especially since your blithely ignoring that this is how storytelling has worked for millennia; not some "philosophical" invention of mine. The fluffy word choice was my attempt to explain why storytelling works that way. My mistake apparently.

So why (unless referred to by canon sources) - it might be your canon, but that's only relevant to you and perhaps your players. If that's all that matter, then there's no point discussing it, no one can prevent you from doing that, whereas Disney and LF can scratch all of that literary faecal flotsam and replace it with something else.

I object to that assertion (I think? It was a little hard to follow, sorry). The fact that we engage in such discussions at all shows that people enjoy it but they also internalize things from those discussions thus slowly and surely moving the consensus. I reject Disney, LF or anyone else's right to tell me what is objectively true about the Star Wars universe. Share a story; convince me your version is better. :-)

(First you miss quote me here... that's nice )

No. That's actually what you wrote (at least at the time I quoted it). I do not appreciate the implication that I was trying to deceive anyone.

Regardless, that's the only part I care to respond to. If you're going to insist that legal rights give social rights (instead of being entirely a financial protection) then I don't think you and I have much left to talk about. Especially since your blithely ignoring that this is how storytelling has worked for millennia; not some "philosophical" invention of mine. The fluffy word choice was my attempt to explain why storytelling works that way. My mistake apparently.

I'm referring to the "So why (..."-part, which isn't what I wrote. So, no, I'm not saying you're deceiving anyone. I just noticed, that's all. As you can see, that post of mine was never edited

I'm not insisting that legal rights give social rights no, there isn't necessarily a universal causality here, but the relationship between the two needs to be recognised (as there obviously is one), simply because that's the social reality we now live in, regardless of the musings done by academics on the history of storytelling. Nothing, when it comes to these arguably soft sciences (or as Kuhn would've called them: academic disciplines), is clear cut with this. Also, again, there are two levels (at least) to this, and subscribing to one persuasion doesn't invalidate others, and is poor grounds to ignore how things (can) work today. How storytelling has worked is interesting, as an academic exercise sure, but you cannot ignore how things work today "just because" academics and literature tells you it has worked differently before. The key word here is "has", past tense. Not to say it doesn't work like that on some levels still, but we have got this notion of private ownership and private property (which is a rather peculiar notion) that we have to deal with today. In some way or another.

Quote context got massively fowled on that last one for some reason. Anyway I fixed the original. The cursor must have gotten misplaced while I was typing (on my phone) somehow.

That help?

Definitely. And.... I'm glad he didn't do that. The German thing, I mean. I really don't care how grainy it is!

Regardless, that's the only part I care to respond to. If you're going to insist that legal rights give social rights (instead of being entirely a financial protection) then I don't think you and I have blah, blah, bu-blah blah, yadda, yadda, blah blah blah.

I'm not insisting that legal rights give social rights no, there isn't necessarily a universal causality here, but the relationship between the two needs to be recognised (as there obviously is one), simply because that's the social reality we now live in, regardless of the musings done by academics on the history of blah, blah, bu-blah blah, yada, yada, blah blah blah.

Star Wars.

RPGs.

Stuff somehow related to Star Wars and RPGs, even if by a microthread.

Otherwise, please check out that envelope symbol in the upper right corner.

Star Wars.

RPGs.

Stuff somehow related to Star Wars and RPGs, even if by a microthread.

Otherwise, please check out that envelope symbol in the upper right corner.

Congratulations on the "not helping your cause at all".