The Morality starting values... whether it's adjusted by +/-20 or +/-21 doesn't in the larger picture matter. Sure, you start out as either a paragon of the light side or consumed by the dark side with this recent change, rather than on the cusp of either falling or becoming a lightsider. My point is that both provide good roleplaying opportunities for either redemption, falling, continuing on the path, or striving towards a more balanced and harmonious midway. If you start out on the verge of falling, that's cool, but if you start out as already fallen, but striving towards redemption or that grey middle way... that's easily as cool. The same with the almost paragon vs paragon situation, being almost paragon is cool, there's the work towards the goodiestuff, to become this paragon, but then, having already become a paragon can provide a different set of challenges, remaining paragon, resisting the temptations that would have larger consequences now, or to play into this, a lightsider that is "actively" falling from grace, becoming corrupted, having lost his/her/its way... that makes the fall that much longer, possible to be roleplayed properly.

Now, sure the game mechanical argument is one thing, there's a benefit to be starting off as either, but you do so at the expense of extra resources (XP and/or credits). Still, if this is the only part that provides incentives for playing and making choices, I'd say, in my now common place elitist and normative manner: You're doing it wrong. To borrow, or at least be somewhat inspired from mr. Wick's recent blog post: If the reason for you playing roleplaying game is levelling up, customising gear and basically focus on the numbers on the sheet, you're doing it wrong, you could be playing chess instead (I'm not saying that as a bad thing, chess is a good board game). I'm not saying this part of the game isn't important or at least enjoyable, but I think that the reason for playing roleplaying games should be first and foremost to: Roleplaying; create stories with others; suspend disbelief and immerse oneself in a universe and story driven by a collaborative effort. Your character is of course important here, but again, the stats themselves are secondary to the actual character, they don't define him/her/it, it's the character that define the rest. At least I think it should be. Choices should be made based on the character, not game mechanical benefits and maximisation. I'm not saying one should avoid that at all costs, but I'm saying if it all boils down to tweaking and specialising as we see it in... oh, a certain few MMOs, then it's not the roleplaying and story-creation the game is about anymore, at least no necessarily , it becomes about having the best set and combination of numbers and rule changing extras (i.e. talents, force powers, etc).

Whether or not one of the rules is more "Star Wars" than the other doesn't factor into this, it's a non-argument, because as has been established numerous times on this forum (and elsewhere), Star Wars is very different for different people. No one (on these forums at the very least) has the authority of definition. Arguably no one has. Sure, there's the whole jurisprudence of it, but let's ignore that as it plays little into this: What I think is Star Wars, what Donovan Morningfire thinks is Star Wars, or DarthGM, Angelicdoctor, Rakaydos, Awayputurwpn or Zar thinks is Star Wars is mostly only relevant to each one of us, and our gaming groups. We all have one thing in common: Star Wars is a resource to us, it's something we actively use to create our own stories and variant of that universe as it fits with our vision and desires of how it should be, at least in our games. Perhaps there are basic premisses of what constitutes "Star Wars" but we are not in the position, when discussing a game and rules mechanics, to use (or able really) that as an argument for some position or another, it becomes a variant of argument from authority and that's just silly and pointless, or to be more precise: a logical fallacy. So, I'm not saying we shouldn't use our own vision of Star Wars as a basis for our position, but to use it as an argument (place-holder really) and a blanket generalisation:"... because Star Wars" is, when it all boils down to it (whether you're a fan of only one film or all of Legends) meaningless and a non-argument, it's perhaps an opinion (and important to you and your games), but opinions are not arguments and are -I'm going normative now- of lesser value and validity in any discussion, but particularly in a discussion on game mechanics and rules. So, keep your opinions and perspective, but avoid trying to use "... because Star Wars"-opinions as an argument place holder (I know I've done this exact thing too), find proper arguments, opinions matter mostly only to oneself, arguments provide a social opportunity to discuss, affect and be affected by others on subjects one cares about (to varying degrees), and they could matter for other people too.

Take it easy, amigo. I was just offering my opinion, a dissenting one, but an opinion nonetheless. That is what this forum is for, no? And this based on the precedent set by the six films in their entirety. Agree with me? That's great. No? Then it is no skin off my nose.

The Morality starting values... whether it's adjusted by +/-20 or +/-21 doesn't in the larger picture matter. Sure, you start out as either a paragon of the light side or consumed by the dark side with this recent change, rather than on the cusp of either falling or becoming a lightsider. My point is that both provide good roleplaying opportunities for either redemption, falling, continuing on the path, or striving towards a more balanced and harmonious midway. If you start out on the verge of falling, that's cool, but if you start out as already fallen, but striving towards redemption or that grey middle way... that's easily as cool. The same with the almost paragon vs paragon situation, being almost paragon is cool, there's the work towards the goodiestuff, to become this paragon, but then, having already become a paragon can provide a different set of challenges, remaining paragon, resisting the temptations that would have larger consequences now, or to play into this, a lightsider that is "actively" falling from grace, becoming corrupted, having lost his/her/its way... that makes the fall that much longer, possible to be roleplayed properly.

Now, sure the game mechanical argument is one thing, there's a benefit to be starting off as either, but you do so at the expense of extra resources (XP and/or credits). Still, if this is the only part that provides incentives for playing and making choices, I'd say, in my now common place elitist and normative manner: You're doing it wrong. To borrow, or at least be somewhat inspired from mr. Wick's recent blog post: If the reason for you playing roleplaying game is levelling up, customising gear and basically focus on the numbers on the sheet, you're doing it wrong, you could be playing chess instead (I'm not saying that as a bad thing, chess is a good board game). I'm not saying this part of the game isn't important or at least enjoyable, but I think that the reason for playing roleplaying games should be first and foremost to: Roleplaying; create stories with others; suspend disbelief and immerse oneself in a universe and story driven by a collaborative effort. Your character is of course important here, but again, the stats themselves are secondary to the actual character, they don't define him/her/it, it's the character that define the rest. At least I think it should be. Choices should be made based on the character, not game mechanical benefits and maximisation. I'm not saying one should avoid that at all costs, but I'm saying if it all boils down to tweaking and specialising as we see it in... oh, a certain few MMOs, then it's not the roleplaying and story-creation the game is about anymore, at least no necessarily , it becomes about having the best set and combination of numbers and rule changing extras (i.e. talents, force powers, etc).

Whether or not one of the rules is more "Star Wars" than the other doesn't factor into this, it's a non-argument, because as has been established numerous times on this forum (and elsewhere), Star Wars is very different for different people. No one (on these forums at the very least) has the authority of definition. Arguably no one has. Sure, there's the whole jurisprudence of it, but let's ignore that as it plays little into this: What I think is Star Wars, what Donovan Morningfire thinks is Star Wars, or DarthGM, Angelicdoctor, Rakaydos, Awayputurwpn or Zar thinks is Star Wars is mostly only relevant to each one of us, and our gaming groups. We all have one thing in common: Star Wars is a resource to us, it's something we actively use to create our own stories and variant of that universe as it fits with our vision and desires of how it should be, at least in our games. Perhaps there are basic premisses of what constitutes "Star Wars" but we are not in the position, when discussing a game and rules mechanics, to use (or able really) that as an argument for some position or another, it becomes a variant of argument from authority and that's just silly and pointless, or to be more precise: a logical fallacy. So, I'm not saying we shouldn't use our own vision of Star Wars as a basis for our position, but to use it as an argument (place-holder really) and a blanket generalisation:"... because Star Wars" is, when it all boils down to it (whether you're a fan of only one film or all of Legends) meaningless and a non-argument, it's perhaps an opinion (and important to you and your games), but opinions are not arguments and are -I'm going normative now- of lesser value and validity in any discussion, but particularly in a discussion on game mechanics and rules. So, keep your opinions and perspective, but avoid trying to use "... because Star Wars"-opinions as an argument place holder (I know I've done this exact thing too), find proper arguments, opinions matter mostly only to oneself, arguments provide a social opportunity to discuss, affect and be affected by others on subjects one cares about (to varying degrees), and they could matter for other people too.

Take it easy, amigo. I was just offering my opinion, a dissenting one, but an opinion nonetheless. That is what this forum is for, no? And this based on the precedent set by the six films in their entirety. Agree with me? That's great. No? Then it is no skin off my nose.

I would argue that Dark Maul, if statted as a PC, did not need to spend a session slaughtering kids on-screen. The fact that he began "play" already a Darksaider at his dark Mentor's side was enough for the first movie.

Hit with a bad crit just when he was about to finish off the jedi master/apprentice pair, the player rerolled next game with a Makashi Duelist... who also "fell" offscreen, in the character's backstory.

Not everyone plays the heros. Some would rather play already steeped in evil. A hero can fall from 50 (or 70) morality, but a villian starts in darkness.

Take it easy, amigo. I was just offering my opinion, a dissenting one, but an opinion nonetheless. That is what this forum is for, no? And this based on the precedent set by the six films in their entirety. Agree with me? That's great. No? Then it is no skin off my nose.

I would argue that Dark Maul, if statted as a PC, did not need to spend a session slaughtering kids on-screen. The fact that he began "play" already a Darksaider at his dark Mentor's side was enough for the first movie. (unlike Anakin, who started with 50 Morality and extra gear, to afford his modded-out podracer that could use his Warrior: Ace Pilot talents. Obiwan was a light side paragon, while Quigon went for bonus XP as a "grey jedi". Jar jar also got extra XP, but wasted it all getting 2 skill ranks in EVERY SKILL.. leading to his unending series of "Fail, with a Triumph" rolls.)

Hit with a bad crit just when he was about to finish off the jedi master/apprentice pair, the player rerolled next game with a Makashi Duelist... who also "fell" offscreen, in the character's backstory.

Not everyone plays the heros. Some would rather play already steeped in evil. A hero can fall from 50 (or 70) morality, but a villian starts in darkness.

Yes, but even Darth Maul did not start out as a dark side devil, cf. TCW.

Of course not everyone plays 'the' heroes though everyone likes to play a hero, or an anti-hero as the case may be. Heck, even the character creation section starts out with a curious title in this regard. But this is beside the point and to argue further would be to continue going around and around on this carousel. I have written my mind on the matter and some of you have made some interesting points on the subject. Still. I would like to see a return to the original rule.

Yes, but even Darth Maul did not start out as a dark side devil, cf. TCW.

Not as a child, maybe, but by the time he became a "playable character" he was.

That assumes that you would not think a child is a good character concept. I am open to it. In fact, the spiritual predecessor of this game included such a template.

That assumes that you would not think a child is a good character concept. I am open to it. In fact, the spiritual predecessor of this game included such a template.

I find that players who play children often don't like the results.

In this game they would be sil 1 with the mods that would grant. They would generally be ignored by the adult population about anything meaningful. The other players would get rants by those well intentioned do-gooders who cannot believe that they are taking a child into danger. They are unable to own property legally, have complicated skills that require training (unless you go the child prodigy route...overused blecht!), and will often be treated as just a kid.

Most players don't want to be dismissed as often as it would happen.

That assumes that you would not think a child is a good character concept. I am open to it. In fact, the spiritual predecessor of this game included such a template.

Sweet little goal-post move there. Basically you are saying if you wanted to play a Maul-like character, you'd have to start him out as an innocent child because...well, just because you don't think the game should allow characters to be started at either Morality extreme with a backstory that got them there. That seems a pretty arbitrary way to sustain your point.

That assumes that you would not think a child is a good character concept. I am open to it. In fact, the spiritual predecessor of this game included such a template.

I find that players who play children often don't like the results.

In this game they would be sil 1 with the mods that would grant. They would generally be ignored by the adult population about anything meaningful. The other players would get rants by those well intentioned do-gooders who cannot believe that they are taking a child into danger. They are unable to own property legally, have complicated skills that require training (unless you go the child prodigy route...overused blecht!), and will often be treated as just a kid.

Most players don't want to be dismissed as often as it would happen.

Almost like droids...

That assumes that you would not think a child is a good character concept. I am open to it. In fact, the spiritual predecessor of this game included such a template.

I find that players who play children often don't like the results.

In this game they would be sil 1 with the mods that would grant. They would generally be ignored by the adult population about anything meaningful. The other players would get rants by those well intentioned do-gooders who cannot believe that they are taking a child into danger. They are unable to own property legally, have complicated skills that require training (unless you go the child prodigy route...overused blecht!), and will often be treated as just a kid.

Most players don't want to be dismissed as often as it would happen.

Almost like droids...

A bit more so, but yeah.

How about a Signature Item sidebar that lets each character designate one piece of equipment that gets a reduced difficulty to mod?

This seems to have gotten lost in press, but seems like a good suggestion to me.

Just to throw in my opinion again...

This is Star Wars first!------ and a ROLE (not roll) PLAYING game second!

The point of playing this game [and it is a game, it needs rules, game mechanics etc.] is to step into the role of a character in the SW universe which means you need to be able to do the things the characters do in the SW universe . The rules need to reflect that or otherwise it just won't be SW, its just another sci-fi based rpg with a SW label slapped on it and you might as well just play Rifts Phase World, Traveller, or Star Frontiers.

[snippety snip snip]

Take it easy, amigo. I was just offering my opinion, a dissenting one, but an opinion nonetheless. That is what this forum is for, no? And this based on the precedent set by the six films in their entirety. Agree with me? That's great. No? Then it is no skin off my nose.

I am taking it easy, I'm sorry you feel this was an attack on you - which from your post seems to be the way you took it (although I may of course be mistaken), but it wasn't personal nor directed specifically towards you (or anyone else).

Whether I agree with your opinion or not is irrelevant.

I thought the forum was for discussions using proper arguments, not merely opinions, but sure if opinions is all it's about then why even discuss?

Just to throw in my opinion again...

This is Star Wars first!------ and a ROLE (not roll) PLAYING game second!

The point of playing this game [and it is a game, it needs rules, game mechanics etc.] is to step into the role of a character in the SW universe which means you need to be able to do the things the characters do in the SW universe . The rules need to reflect that or otherwise it just won't be SW, its just another sci-fi based rpg with a SW label slapped on it and you might as well just play Rifts Phase World, Traveller, or Star Frontiers.

I can't agree with you there, I don't disagree that it should definitely feel Star Wars and not just a generic set of rules with the names added. I just personally don't agree that the RPG side is secondary, I would hate to be involved in anything which was Star Wars first because everyone has a different idea of what makes Star Wars.

I ran a game of EoE at a convention and there was a player who was an 'expert'. For me the game should flow and be fun first, but this player just kept telling us how we were doing it wrong, and this made the game less fun for everyone else.

As to being able to do the things that the characters do in the Star Wars universe, remember that this is a game based on Film, cartoon and books. Character's in these media are often used as tools to enable the story that the (script) writer wants told. Given that RPG's tend to be set so that everyone has a chance to be the hero not just the guy with the Force or the commander of the featured ship, this means that it is quite difficult to accurately model those stories and characters. No set of rules will be able to enable everything without contradicting itself or just being flat out unfair to some players.

My take is licensed products should be heavily flavored, but not so rigid about the setting that it sucks the fun out of the game.

I suppose we all have our own priorities in our games.

E

Just to throw in my opinion again...

This is Star Wars first!------ and a ROLE (not roll) PLAYING game second!

The point of playing this game [and it is a game, it needs rules, game mechanics etc.] is to step into the role of a character in the SW universe which means you need to be able to do the things the characters do in the SW universe . The rules need to reflect that or otherwise it just won't be SW, its just another sci-fi based rpg with a SW label slapped on it and you might as well just play Rifts Phase World, Traveller, or Star Frontiers.

I can't agree with you there, I don't disagree that it should definitely feel Star Wars and not just a generic set of rules with the names added. I just personally don't agree that the RPG side is secondary, I would hate to be involved in anything which was Star Wars first because everyone has a different idea of what makes Star Wars.

I ran a game of EoE at a convention and there was a player who was an 'expert'. For me the game should flow and be fun first, but this player just kept telling us how we were doing it wrong, and this made the game less fun for everyone else.

As to being able to do the things that the characters do in the Star Wars universe, remember that this is a game based on Film, cartoon and books. Character's in these media are often used as tools to enable the story that the (script) writer wants told. Given that RPG's tend to be set so that everyone has a chance to be the hero not just the guy with the Force or the commander of the featured ship, this means that it is quite difficult to accurately model those stories and characters. No set of rules will be able to enable everything without contradicting itself or just being flat out unfair to some players.

My take is licensed products should be heavily flavored, but not so rigid about the setting that it sucks the fun out of the game.

I suppose we all have our own priorities in our games.

E

The last line of your comment sums it all up "its just flat out unfair to some players"

If you want fair go play D&D or some other meticulously balanced system, no offense friend, life is not fair StarWars has NEVER been fair especially in the films. A player should choose a role that sounds fun to play and stay within his role and not be a crybaby when someone else seems to have a better character in certain circumstances. A lot of this whining really stems from crappy GM'ing, It is one of the GM's role if not the chief most important role to make sure EVERY player has their turn in the limelight. I have super social character (diplomat) in my group. Its hard sometimes to work her gifts into a story especially when were moving at a fast pace but I do it even though personally its boring to me,"Ok you go to the Imperial governors dinner party" (me-yaaaaaawwwwwwn) but it does have tangible in game benefits at times, and btw she can pull off so much more than a Jedi's mind trick.

Just because you have to work more at times as a player or GM to make things interesting for your character or player don't be a crybaby and call foul, no fair, whaaaaaa! when you see some one else enjoying their role in the SW universe and try to punish and limit them.

It's so interesting how differently everyone views this game. The arguements about balance are fascinating to me, because -- with the exception of playing Pathfinder/DnD -- balance has never been a considering factor. My group and I started out with Call of Cthulhu six years ago, which is notorious for how unbalanced the PC/NPC dynamic is. My group would get mowed down by almost every adversary they came against, which was fine, because I provided them with other non-combat challenges that they excelled at.

Lightsabers are crazy powerful. In the movies and the EU, if a lightsaber touches you, you die. At the very least you lose a limb. A PC with a lightsaber is going to be strong. Likewise, Jedi are ridiculously powerful. They completely overwhelm 99.9% of all opponents they face. Why should a Stormtrooper Sgt. be able to survive a strike from a lightsaber? It is an infinitely sharp blade. The lightsaber should outright kill him if the PC lands their blow. Sure, it's unbalanced, but so is the real world. And Star Wars, really.

These arguments about the crit number and effectiveness of the Breach Quality and whether a lightsaber is too strong when compared to other melee weapons sems so bizarre. Yes, it's stupid powerful compared to a vibrosword. It should be. I feel like mitigating its strength would take away from the analogue to the movies.

The way I see it, Force-users are significantly more powerful than non-Force-users. That's what we see in canon sources, and it doesn't seem like a terrible thing to me. If snything, I love how unbalanced Force-users can be sometimes in this game. It feels like Star Wars and keeps my players on their toes.

Balance is important for a lot of people because having a character at the table that dominates a certain scenario when others have chosen to build their characters to be good at it too can easily dampen the fun (and drama).

Blasters almost always kill as well. Even through armor.

And Jedi are way above normal. But so are many other non-Jedi characters.

Obi-wan and Jango Fett were at a stand-off.

Jango-fett killed a Jedi who tried to attack the "spectator box" in the arena. Yes, he was killed by a Jedi master - arguably the most powerful in the Order after Yoda - but he was a very formidable opponent.

And take the Clone Wars tv show (it's canon too). Often derided as super Jedi on crack it actually presented a bunch of non-Jedi characters who gave Jedi a run for their money and regularly beat them.

Jedi are supposed to be very powerful and a force to be reckoned with. But there are other archetypes in the game that are as formidable and other non-Jedi PCs at the table should be as capable.

balance is a loaded phrase too. I prefer equitable.

If I give a bonus to one archtype of player (especially based on a narrative or universe reason) is that equitable to the players that are not in that archtype. I personally (and again this is the economist/auditor portion of me) like to think that all things should have an opportunity cost.

Also, it's important to realise that the focus on one particualr group shouldn't reduce, invalidate, or inequitably affect certain core mechanics of the game. If in this instance, we consider modding equipment, or morality a core component of the game, it's important that all option are attractive on their own merit, not that one option is clearly the better choice in 90% of all situations.

Finally, if an option is too good to give every archtype for free (no cost associated with resources, or xp, or what have you) then it's probably too good to give to even one archtype for free, unless for some reason that archtype is suboptimal in the meta of the game.

Those are balance issues, but it's not about rogues doing the same damage as fighters, or that everyone's damage per encounter is functionally the same. It's more about making sure all choices are viable, and that no one gets a "free lunch" so to speak, thus reducing the viablility of other choices.

The last line of your comment sums it all up "its just flat out unfair to some players"

If you want fair go play D&D or some other meticulously balanced system, no offense friend, life is not fair StarWars has NEVER been fair especially in the films. A player should choose a role that sounds fun to play and stay within his role and not be a crybaby when someone else seems to have a better character in certain circumstances. A lot of this whining really stems from crappy GM'ing, It is one of the GM's role if not the chief most important role to make sure EVERY player has their turn in the limelight. I have super social character (diplomat) in my group. Its hard sometimes to work her gifts into a story especially when were moving at a fast pace but I do it even though personally its boring to me,"Ok you go to the Imperial governors dinner party" (me-yaaaaaawwwwwwn) but it does have tangible in game benefits at times, and btw she can pull off so much more than a Jedi's mind trick.

Just because you have to work more at times as a player or GM to make things interesting for your character or player don't be a crybaby and call foul, no fair, whaaaaaa! when you see some one else enjoying their role in the SW universe and try to punish and limit them.

Ok, if that is your entire argument then you are clearly an opinionated gamer with an over inflated value on your own opinion. If you can only belittle others outlooks when they differ from your own then you are not worth my time.

@Thebearisdriving actually equitable is a better word, thanks. The important thing from my perspective is that no one person should dominate the game due to character choice. That is not to say that everyone must be as good at combat, but in their own fields everyone should feel they have something to contribute.

E

Since when was D&D/Pathfinder a balanced game? I'm pretty sure it's a poster child of linear warrior/quadratic wizard.

That assumes that you would not think a child is a good character concept. I am open to it. In fact, the spiritual predecessor of this game included such a template.

I find that players who play children often don't like the results.

In this game they would be sil 1 with the mods that would grant. They would generally be ignored by the adult population about anything meaningful. The other players would get rants by those well intentioned do-gooders who cannot believe that they are taking a child into danger. They are unable to own property legally, have complicated skills that require training (unless you go the child prodigy route...overused blecht!), and will often be treated as just a kid.

Most players don't want to be dismissed as often as it would happen.

Almost like droids...

I suppose then that your mileage may vary. I have played a number of games wherein the players took on roles as kids. No issues here, mates.

That assumes that you would not think a child is a good character concept. I am open to it. In fact, the spiritual predecessor of this game included such a template.

Sweet little goal-post move there. Basically you are saying if you wanted to play a Maul-like character, you'd have to start him out as an innocent child because...well, just because you don't think the game should allow characters to be started at either Morality extreme with a backstory that got them there. That seems a pretty arbitrary way to sustain your point.

Nope. Missed point. Entirely.

Since when was D&D/Pathfinder a balanced game? I'm pretty sure it's a poster child of linear warrior/quadratic wizard.

ever play Rifts? lol!

actually it starts out pretty balanced, then add archetypes, prestige classes, feats, mythic rules and everything else published, then yeah it can get real wonky.

oops

That assumes that you would not think a child is a good character concept. I am open to it. In fact, the spiritual predecessor of this game included such a template.

I find that players who play children often don't like the results.

In this game they would be sil 1 with the mods that would grant. They would generally be ignored by the adult population about anything meaningful. The other players would get rants by those well intentioned do-gooders who cannot believe that they are taking a child into danger. They are unable to own property legally, have complicated skills that require training (unless you go the child prodigy route...overused blecht!), and will often be treated as just a kid.

Most players don't want to be dismissed as often as it would happen.

Almost like droids...

I suppose then that your mileage may vary. I have played a number of games wherein the players took on roles as kids. No issues here, mates.

Indeed. Episode 1 Anakin is a prime example.

But anakin didnt need to start on the edge of light or of darkness for his character arc- he was just a normal kid who drew the eye of *cough* an older woman.

Obiwan, I would argue, started as a light side paragon, whereas Quigon did not. Obiwan did what he felt was right, Quigon did what he thought was nessisary- rigging games of chance, attempting to take financial advantage of an outworld "Respectable" mercant, calling a drug-pusher's entire way of life in question through the force, claiming ownership of the podracer that anakin built out of watto's junk (and then selling it to a third party to finance the team), and so on. It's easy to see how "grey" jedi tended to fall.

Darth Maul, on the other hand, first appears, already happily fallen to darkness. There's no "playing him since a child to fall to darkness"- that all happened years ago. He is the Sith Apprentice, and for that, he needs to be darkside at character creation.

[snippety snip snip]

Take it easy, amigo. I was just offering my opinion, a dissenting one, but an opinion nonetheless. That is what this forum is for, no? And this based on the precedent set by the six films in their entirety. Agree with me? That's great. No? Then it is no skin off my nose.

I am taking it easy, I'm sorry you feel this was an attack on you - which from your post seems to be the way you took it (although I may of course be mistaken), but it wasn't personal nor directed specifically towards you (or anyone else).

Whether I agree with your opinion or not is irrelevant.

I thought the forum was for discussions using proper arguments, not merely opinions, but sure if opinions is all it's about then why even discuss?

Silly me. I thought that we could "use this board to discuss the beta test with the other people involved, post questions and feedback, and get news updates from the Star Wars Roleplaying Game team."

Arguments, proper or otherwise, and when done in charity are a bonus. As I have learned in my study of logical fallacies, however, it is almost never helpful to tell someone he or she has erred by way of argumentum ad <fill in the blank>. It assumes you know what you are writing about and is also condescending. As we say here in Texas, 'you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar'.