Meanwhile, I could care less about whether a specific ship is canon or not.

Couldn't care less, surely.

It's a widely used, decades-old idiom. We see it used primarily in a sardonic way, as opposed to the more serious "I couldn't care less."

http://blog.dictionary.com/could-care-less/

If you don't want epic level play, just don't have epically powerful characters in it.

I guess we have different ideas of "epic". Epic is Frodo refusing to drop the ring and fighting Gollum for it, Luke tossing away his lightsaber and saying "Never! I am Jedi"... It's not "I wave my pinky and starships go flying".

I was using Epic in the sense of D&D where you have three tiers - Heroic, Paragon and Epic, with Epic being where you mix with deities, etc. Read is as "high-powered" if that helps. It takes very high amounts of XP even if you absurdly narrow the focus of your character to the point it's hard to believe it would actually survive to that point without a very indulgent GM. So unless you decide to run an epic-level / very high-powered game, this is never going to happen. Hence objecting to it clashing with what you set out as your preference in canon.

Meanwhile, I could care less about whether a specific ship is canon or not.

Couldn't care less, surely.

It's a widely used, decades-old idiom. We see it used primarily in a sardonic way, as opposed to the more serious "I couldn't care less."

http://blog.dictionary.com/could-care-less/

I've never noticed anyone to use it sardonically. I've only ever known them to use it ignorantly. When you point out the differences between "could care less" and "could not care less", they usually cease using the former (and generally only ever used the former previously).

I've never noticed anyone to use it sardonically. I've only ever known them to use it ignorantly. When you point out the differences between "could care less" and "could not care less", they usually cease using the former (and generally only ever used the former previously).

This has been my experience, as well.

And not to draw a direct line to any one in this thread, I am compelled to add that in cases where I have known someone to use "could care less", those same people also tend to misuse "literally", say "for all intensive purposes", confuse "except" and "accept" when writing (which can completely alter a sentence), and (also when writing) use "could of" instead of "could have".

I've never noticed anyone to use it sardonically. I've only ever known them to use it ignorantly. When you point out the differences between "could care less" and "could not care less", they usually cease using the former (and generally only ever used the former previously).

This has been my experience, as well.

And not to draw a direct line to any one in this thread, I am compelled to add that in cases where I have known someone to use "could care less", those same people also tend to misuse "literally", say "for all intensive purposes", confuse "except" and "accept" when writing (which can completely alter a sentence), and (also when writing) use "could of" instead of "could have".

I'm just going to leave this here.

(just because it's funny - not targeted at anyone in particular)

sorry - ignore this post. No way to delete them on this forum.

[...]

"Hold down the fort" is so intrinsic to me know that the whole argument just sounds silly to me.

I got a good chuckle out of this.

(just because it's funny - not targeted at anyone in particular)

Amusing, but for all intensive purposes you half to except that it could of been interpreted as such...

Funny definition of proof. Maybe Palpatine just isn't that good at moving things around. Maybe he put most of his points in Force Lightning, Sense and Influence.

Other than the evidence that he clearly knows how to move things around, since he's throwing pod after pod...

This brings up a one of the problems with translating powers into discrete game mechanics. My impression from the media is that Force users grow into their powers in a more wholistic fashion. Insight into the ways of the Force is more broad based, touching on and unlocking capability in a variety of disciplines at once. There might be some minor specialization, but generally they grow their abilities on the same track. We don't see Jedi who are awesome at Move, but can't use Influence. The investment is horizontal, not vertical, but the game almost encourages narrow and vertical advancement.

Based on that impression alone I'd have a hard time entertaining the idea that Palpatine isn't that good at moving things around.

You can count me as a well-spoken (when the need arises) individual with a pretty darn expansive vocabulary, who has used "I could care less" many a time in a sardonic, light-hearted manner. The point could be made that I rarely, if ever, use the phrase "I couldn't care less," but I think it's mostly because I'm just not that mean

Anyway...yeah, Palpatine throwing stuff was cool. But there are instances in the EU where these individuals, or even sects of Force users, are insanely incredible at telekinesis, but at the expense of being well-rounded like a Jedi or Sith might be. So I can see the full Move tree as a game-bound example of those types of people.

Funny definition of proof. Maybe Palpatine just isn't that good at moving things around. Maybe he put most of his points in Force Lightning, Sense and Influence.

Other than the evidence that he clearly knows how to move things around, since he's throwing pod after pod...

I said isn't that good at moving things, not that he can't do it. The platforms are already floating - they're designed to fly. And they're Silhouette 3 at worst and that's with the GM being mean.

This brings up a one of the problems with translating powers into discrete game mechanics. My impression from the media is that Force users grow into their powers in a more wholistic fashion. Insight into the ways of the Force is more broad based, touching on and unlocking capability in a variety of disciplines at once. There might be some minor specialization, but generally they grow their abilities on the same track. We don't see Jedi who are awesome at Move, but can't use Influence. The investment is horizontal, not vertical, but the game almost encourages narrow and vertical advancement. Based on that impression alone I'd have a hard time entertaining the idea that Palpatine isn't that good at moving things around.

Sort of like how Vader is good at Force Lightning?

So basically I'm getting the argument that

(1) a Force user is roughly good at all aspects of Force use equally

(2) Palpatine is a powerful Force user.

(3) Therefore Palpatine is representative of the best of Force movement.

(4) When battling, Palpatine would have moved YT-1300's / walls / etc. if he had been able to.

(5) Therefore it is not possible to for a Force user to move such things.

I think there are several steps in that sequence that are either dubious or out and out unproven. #1 is just your contention, #4 can actually be out and out refuted because we know that Yoda can move an X-Wing but doesn't move anything as big in the fight ergo we actually know that Palpatine and Yoda aren't using their maximum Move capabilities in this fight. Or alternately, Yoda isn't capable of lifting an X-Wing yet and only becomes that powerful after seclusion on Dagobah. That's also problematic for the argument as it indicates the fight participants aren't as powerful as it gets after all.

However you slice it, I wouldn't want to trust my weight to that argument when swinging away from stormtroopers.

Sort of like how Vader is good at Force Lightning?

You're exaggerating the point. It's not that there isn't variation, it's that knowledge of the Force doesn't seem to come in tiny discrete packets.

I just comes down to how you want to view the metaphysics. Is the SW universe one where you can learn, say, everything about Move and know nothing about Influence, or does the knowledge bleed over? I'll go with the latter.

(just because it's funny - not targeted at anyone in particular)

Amusing, but for all intensive purposes you half to except that it could of been interpreted as such...

I laughed so hard, I blew milk out my nose drills.

Sort of like how Vader is good at Force Lightning?

You're exaggerating the point. It's not that there isn't variation, it's that knowledge of the Force doesn't seem to come in tiny discrete packets.

I don't think I'm exaggerating anything. It's you who has asserted as fact that a Force practitioner advances in all aspects of the Force rather than being good at some things but not as good at others. I can think of almost no area of life where that is true in fact, and I don't think we see evidence that this is true in the canon sources and actually we see evidence against it. I already mentioned Vader who is one of the most powerful Force users in canon and there is no hint that they are able to use Force lightning. More - he seems to have no ability to defend against it the way at least two other Force users were able to do so. If you want another instance, recall Savage Oppress being trained by Count Dooku. Savage asks to be taught the techniques of Force Lightning and defending against it and Dooku replies that he will keep that a secret for now. And Savage Oppress is unarguably a more powerful Force user than most, merrily hurling both Anakin and Obi Wan down hallways simultaneously. Yet we can see that his abilities with the Force are compartmentalised, not general.

You're building a whole argument that this level of Move power isn't possible on the assumption that Force users are equivalently good at all different Force techniques and can't have significant differences in them. And that no-one could be better at it than Palpatine. I don't think it's fair to say that I'm "exaggerating" when you are building an argument on your assumptions.

I just comes down to how you want to view the metaphysics. Is the SW universe one where you can learn, say, everything about Move and know nothing about Influence, or does the knowledge bleed over? I'll go with the latter.

Which is perfectly fine for you to do so, but canon sources have multiple instances of people being good at one technique but lacking in another. Ahsoka has been merrily hurling boulders around for two and a half seasons of TCW before she suddenly has a vision. Quinlan Voss picks up a cup and uses some form of psychometry to know that Ziro the Hutt was there and I've never seen any other Jedi do that - even very powerful ones in circumstances where it would be supremely useful. Vader is near as strong as they get but still doesn't know how to repel Force Lightning (Protect). Savage Opres is terrifyingly strong in the Force but can't use Lightning like he wants. I think we would need some special reason to suppose that a Jedi wouldn't be better at some Force techniques than others and even if you were neutral on the subject, there are all these examples of it being the case.

I think the battle in the senate is a perfect example of the narrative story in effect.

Papa P: I'm going to tear down the wall and toss it at the runt.

DM: Anything that big takes some concentration. You'll leave yourself open to an attack before you can do it and the difficulty to hit will be X.

Papa P: Never mind. I can throw one of these senate booths quickly right?

DM: Go for it.

I don't think I'm exaggerating anything. It's you who has asserted as fact ... (mega-snip)

So...a denial followed by an example? I didn't "assert as fact", I said it was my "impression". Next post I used the term "seems", intentionally. My position isn't as fixed and hard-edged as you're (mis)representing.

In any case, your examples are poor. Ahsoka begins having visions as she learns more about the Force, much like Anakin had them later. The voiceover for that episode even states (paraphrased) "...she has grown strong in the ways of the Force" implying that new abilities might open up. I never suggested everything goes at the same pace...maybe visions come later, or they're just plot points. Lightning definitely seems to be a pinnacle in a Force wielder's life, not something anybody can pull off. Savage Opress is simply physically massive and uncontrolled, plus he's imbued with "magic" which might throw things off. And Voss' psychometry is apparently a racial talent that has nothing to do with the Force.

And back to Palpatine for a moment: in the new Lords of the Sith book (which is supposed to be canon) he's slamming trees and monsters around with apparent ease. So I guess he's pretty capable with Move.

I don't think I'm exaggerating anything. It's you who has asserted as fact ... (mega-snip)

So...a denial followed by an example? I didn't "assert as fact", I said it was my "impression". Next post I used the term "seems", intentionally. My position isn't as fixed and hard-edged as you're (mis)representing.

Argument by Assertion is where a chain of reasoning depends on unsupported assertions. For you to reach the conclusion you have, you have to make three:

(1) A Force user has roughly the same capability in all techniques and isn't good at some and bad at others.

(2) Palpatine would have used their Move capability to maximum possible effect in the fight with Yoda.

(3) Palpatine is as powerful as a Force user can get.

Each of these is an assertion necessary to the argument you're making. It's not an insult, it's a formal term in Logic.

We have several canon examples of the first one not being true. The second one is extremely dubious, imo. The third has no especial reason why this should be so.

In any case, your examples are poor. Ahsoka begins having visions as she learns more about the Force, much like Anakin had them later.

I.e. different abilities in different Force techniques for the same individual. She has been highly accomplished in Move for at least a couple of seasons and not half bad at Influence as well. Whereas Luke has visions of his friends in danger but is barely able to lift one rock on top of the other and is very far from casually sending droids and troopers flying with a gesture of his hand. You want to build the case that visions are something you get later when you're already grown capable with 'basic' techniques but you're looking for consistency that isn't there.

After all, to cite your own argument back at you, if Luke had been capable of greater Move powers, would he not have used them to their utmost in his duel with Vader later on? You can't use an argument to show something in one case but ignore it elsewhere. If you present an argument about Palpatine vs. Yoda, then by the same argument, Luke gets visions before becoming even remotely as good with Move as Ahsoka. Your argument is inconsistent with itself - this fixed progression you claim doesn't actually exist. The Force in Star Wars is full of inconsistencies. Trying to say no-one can move more than Palpatine does in the fight with Yoda is really, really tenuous. Especially as they're just already floating discs - we see Savage Opres move more than Palpatine does in that fight, amongst a number of others as well.

Remember we have no particular reason to suppose that someone is equally good in all Force techniques, I'm just giving a few convenient examples of where in canon people aren't.

Savage Opress is simply physically massive and uncontrolled

Size matters not! He can't lift half a dozen massive stone columns by his mind because he is physically large or hurl Obi Wan and Anakin around because he lacks control. He shows far more Move capability than Palpatine does in the battle with Yoda but is explicitly unable to do some other things because, again explicitly, he has not been taught the techniques.

, plus he's imbued with "magic" which might throw things off.

Well thing is, now you're shifting the Burden of Proof / No True Scotsman. Remember our default position is not knowing whether or not a Force user can be better or worse at different aspects of the Force (though this is true in every other aspect of life). With the above you are now taking examples of it not being the case and asking for proof that it wasn't because of some exceptional circumstance. You can apply that principle ad infinitem just like the Scotsman and the terrible crime. We can call it the No True Sith fallacy.

And Voss' psychometry is apparently a racial talent that has nothing to do with the Force.

Looked pretty Force-y to me. Surely having visions of what has taken place is connected to the Force, unless there are two all knowing Forces that bind the universe together. Perhaps there is some special quality necessary to use this Force technique. I had just read it as some obscure technique not widely learned.

Are we skipping Darth Vader and his inability to use energy techniques, btw? Because Vader is pretty bloody powerful, iirc.

And back to Palpatine for a moment: in the new Lords of the Sith book (which is supposed to be canon) he's slamming trees and monsters around with apparent ease. So I guess he's pretty capable with Move.

I've read it. I'm not getting how this helps your argument given that he is moving around more and heavier things dealing with wild animals than in the fight with Yoda where you argue he must be using Move to its utmost. Isn't this also the book where Vader hurls a wave of Force that cracks simultaneously rips free stalactites, hurls back over twenty Lyleks (which seem to be like slightly bigger versions of the bugs from Starship Troopers and simultaneously cracks their exoskeletons? It is, by the way - I have the passage right here. Seems a poor choice of material to bring up to overall argue against anyone being able to use Move more than we see Yoda do with the X-Wing where rocks are shattered, creatures the size of SUVs are tossed around in their dozens and people uproot multiple trees with a wave of their hand (that's not figurative wording, btw, I've just read the passage where the Emperor waves his hand and trees are uprooted).

I see no reason in canon why Move can't have the potential that it has. As I state, you've a truly massive XP investment to be able to pull this stuff off normally. If you don't want to run Epic-tier games, then just don't. You seem to have this notion that characters we see on screen must be maxxed out in their abilities but there's no reason this is so.

I think the fact that a lot of these "complaints" about Move have been occurring since the EotE Beta, and that the designers have not made any changes to Move since it was published in the EotE core rulebook, speaks volumes as to whether the fine folks* who have worked on these books at FFG feel that Move needs to be "corrected" to match the movies. In fact, the only change we've seen thus far would have been to ultimately scale up the Move power by making it clear that Strength Upgrades can be activated multiple times in the Force and Destiny Beta updates, rather than scale it down as a vocal few are suggesting needs to be done.

If anything, they're probably taking a larger view of the Star Wars lore instead of limiting themselves to a much narrower source as the nay-sayers have often done. Which makes sense as they're taking a much larger view of the Star Wars lore as a whole given they are frequently drawing from Legends material for things like weapons, equipment, species, and starships. We've seen Move being used on ginormous things in Legends, and since there are players of this game that are themselves fans of Legends material, makes sense that the Move power is going to be written to accomodate those people that want to replicate some of the stuff we see Starkiller or even Yoda in the Clone Wars animated shorts doing, such as using Move to force a bunch of Separatist droid tanks back in their carrier (which has got to be Silhouette 5 at the very least, if not Silhouette 6), and then flinging the carrier up into the air to crash into another carrier, heavily damaging them both, and doing so from a considerable distance away.

Who knows, maybe in The Force Awakens we'll see Luke use Move to lift something so colossally huge that there's no way it could be written off as being larger than Silhouette 4. In that respect, Move being written as it is makes sense from the perspective of "future proofing," something that WotC ran afoul of with their Revised Core Rulebook as when published it had no means to allow a PC to replicate Yoda's trick of blocking and redirecting Force lightning with his bare hands; that was something that was added in errata and future publishings. By Rodney Thompson's own admission, Force powers were set up the way they were in Saga Edition to try and avoid painting themselves into a corner when new or odd uses of the Force cropped up in the various media.

*I say this as I've had the chance to meet Jay, Sam, Max, Andy, and even Tim briefly at past GenCons, and they are good people with a definite passion for Star Wars. Only didn't include Keith Kappel or Sterling Hershey (again both good folks) by dint of them being freelancers and thus not FFG staff.

If anything, they're probably taking a larger view of the Star Wars lore instead of limiting themselves to a much narrower source as the nay-sayers have often done. Which makes sense as they're taking a much larger view of the Star Wars lore as a whole given they are frequently drawing from Legends material for things like weapons, equipment, species, and starships.

Of course. I'm not suggesting FFG change anything, clearly most folks are fine with it, and lots of people love the EU. I might have wished for a change at one point, but that was a long while ago. I'm happy with my own version anyway.

I see no reason in canon why Move can't have the potential that it has. As I state, you've a truly massive XP investment to be able to pull this stuff off normally. If you don't want to run Epic-tier games, then just don't. You seem to have this notion that characters we see on screen must be maxxed out in their abilities but there's no reason this is so.

In all honesty I did not read your wall of text. We're talking past each other, and not going to agree on the "no reason in canon" part of this. So I'm done there.

Ultimately, since this is all fictional anyway, it just boils down to a matter of taste. As I said earlier I'm not a fan of overwrought Force use and I like the relative restraint Lucas (and now Filoni) seem to adhere to. If Abrams has Luke move something like out of the EU or Force Unleashed, I'll probably start sounding like people who whine about the prequels. But that will be entirely my problem.

In the meantime, I'll stick with my own version. That way I don't have to arbitrarily cut off the "epic" portion of Move, and still offer something tactically or narratively useful for the players to spend their XP on.

Who knows, maybe in The Force Awakens we'll see Luke use Move to lift something so colossally huge that there's no way it could be written off as being larger than Silhouette 4. In that respect, Move being written as it is makes sense from the perspective of "future proofing,"

Like lifting up a crashed Star Destroyer or something? Heh heh. Yes it is better to leave the door open and allow GMs to censor their own games than to be too limiting in the RAW.

I see no reason in canon why Move can't have the potential that it has. As I state, you've a truly massive XP investment to be able to pull this stuff off normally. If you don't want to run Epic-tier games, then just don't. You seem to have this notion that characters we see on screen must be maxxed out in their abilities but there's no reason this is so.

In all honesty I did not read your wall of text.

I see. Well you certainly have the right to make statements and not listen to replies to them. We're not "talking past each other" as you claim though. You made statements about what we see in the movies and cartoons. I pointed out counter-examples from within them. But if you're just going to respond that you're not reading replies and just want to post statements unchallenged, like I say, no-one can force you to consider other viewpoints.

In the meantime, I'll stick with my own version. That way I don't have to arbitrarily cut off the "epic" portion of Move, and still offer something tactically or narratively useful for the players to spend their XP on.

I highly doubt you would have to cut off any portion of the Move rules. As I've pointed out, it takes a staggering amount of XP and narrow focus to get to the levels of ability that you are expressing dislike of. You're perfectly entitled to like or dislike different degrees of Force use in your game but it's unlikely you would need to change the rules to achieve this, yet you repeatedly create this impression that you need to do so. How long have you been running your game and what XP have the characters reached so far?

Who knows, maybe in The Force Awakens we'll see Luke use Move to lift something so colossally huge that there's no way it could be written off as being larger than Silhouette 4. In that respect, Move being written as it is makes sense from the perspective of "future proofing,"

Like lifting up a crashed Star Destroyer or something? Heh heh. Yes it is better to leave the door open and allow GMs to censor their own games than to be too limiting in the RAW.

This is probably the best situation, the gm has ultimate control over what type of campaign he is comfortable running and thus the type of Star Wars they want to play.

From the start for example I have a open disbane of force wizards (min-maxed force power users) since a overwhelming campaign I had. When I once pitched a campaign idea I had which involved bounty hunters, and most the party wrote up various Jedi, citing them to be part of Star Wars, I retracted the offer since I had no heart to argue the point that I. Didn't want Jedi to become a part of this setting.

Who knows, maybe in The Force Awakens we'll see Luke use Move to lift something so colossally huge that there's no way it could be written off as being larger than Silhouette 4. In that respect, Move being written as it is makes sense from the perspective of "future proofing,"

Like lifting up a crashed Star Destroyer or something? Heh heh. Yes it is better to leave the door open and allow GMs to censor their own games than to be too limiting in the RAW.

This is probably the best situation, the gm has ultimate control over what type of campaign he is comfortable running and thus the type of Star Wars they want to play.

From the start for example I have a open disbane of force wizards (min-maxed force power users) since a overwhelming campaign I had. When I once pitched a campaign idea I had which involved bounty hunters, and most the party wrote up various Jedi, citing them to be part of Star Wars, I retracted the offer since I had no heart to argue the point that I. Didn't want Jedi to become a part of this setting.

Oddly, when I pitched Star Wars at some friends, two of them specifically stated "so long as there are no Jedi" and none of them have shown the slightest interest in playing Force users. My group is all contemptuous of specially gifted characters and want to be regular types, or even disadvantaged.

I find the best way to deal with min-maxed characters generally is to just not play them at the game they try to make you play. If the party is dragging around some zero charisma thug to social engagements, that's GOING to cause them problems. And it's not necessarily the sort of problems that players can just play a game of chicken with you over like: "the king looks angry" and the players thinking 'the GM can't have the King execute me that would end the game so I'm just going to carry on being cheeky'. They're the sort of problems like: "oh, they wont grant you that introduction to their arms dealer so you can't get the X-Wing".

Realism and a refusal to let players get away with 'I dare you to spoil the game' antics will deal with any Force min-maxers, img. I reckon a player could go about ten sessions at most before they break and decide to start putting points into something other than a single Force power and Force rating. And even if they lasted that long, it wouldn't produce anything game-breaking. It's not even good min-maxing, I would far rather (as a player) have a few upgrades in Move, a few in Sense and a FR of 2 than put it all in one trick.

Short version: I love seeing min-maxers out of their chosen element.

On the one hand, I love sweet, sweet revenge against min-maxers.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that between myself and most of the people I gamed with as a kid (when I used to get to game) - we'd end up having a party of nothing but force users of one variety or another. And several of us would be going Dark Side faster than you can say, "Darth Vader betrayed and murdered Anakin Skywalker!" or "Darth Sidious betrayed and murdered Darth Plagueis!"

If anyone told me, "No Jedi," I'd be all like, "Hey, but I already made my character, and he's an expelled Jedi."

I miss the days when Jedi were just normal people with monastic training, instead of being special midichlorian babies. I really hope midichlorians get retconned out with the new Star Wars movies. Maybe make it so that you're not born with them so much as they just hang out with people or something and people who are more likely to possess monkly attributes are more likely to accumulate them, I don't know. Or a Sith with a doom engine that, a lá Magneto in the first X-Men movie, would make everybody in the galaxy Force sensitive.

This is probably the best situation, the gm has ultimate control over what type of campaign he is comfortable running and thus the type of Star Wars they want to play.

So, speaking for myself, my biggest problem with the way the rules are currently written with regards to Move and some of the other Force powers, is that FFG could easily have solved this problem before it ever materialized. All you have to do is to provide two sets of rules for the way things work, one being a bit weaker and more in line with Ep 4-6, and one being stronger and more in line with FU. Then give the GM the choice of which direction they want to go. That way, everyone gets the ability to have the official RAW that supports however they want to run things.

It’s not like FFG hasn’t already done this kind of thing in the past in other parts of the rule system.

But once a rule system gives something away, it’s virtually impossible to get it back. So, if you’re going to have one and only one set of rules that are either weaker or stronger in this regard, it’s much better to default to the weaker set and let individual GMs come up with their own FU-compatible enhanced versions.

If the official rules are FU-strength out of the box, then you’ve got a problem.

Note that I’ve not said anything here about how many points have to be spent to get where. That is actually not relevant to this discussion. What is relevant to this discussion is the extreme points where things end — if you’re going to be the most powerful Force user in the galaxy, how far can you go?

And if you can go way beyond where any other character that we have seen in any of the movies, TV shows, or games has ever gone, then why? And why didn’t those characters go that far themselves?

This is where “Willing Suspension of Disbelief” totally fails. And it fails long before you actually get to that end described above. Instead, it fails when you can see that point at the end of the tunnel. So, you might only be a Padawan with a single specialization and FR1, but once you realize how completely imbalanced the game is, well that’s kind of "Game Over, Man!” You might as well go play Chutes and Ladders, and maybe cook up your own ladder to add to the game.

Sure the GM can try to rein things in and keep that from happening, but they shouldn’t have to do that.

Of course, this is all IMO, YMMV, etc….