So, after seeing the comments so far in this thread, here’s what I’ve come up with at this point:

1. Several of us seem to agree that “physics as we understand it” cannot explain the behaviour we see in the movies or in the game. So, any discussion of physics in this matter would appear to be irrelevant and counter-productive.

2. Looking for in-game mechanisms/methodology that could be consistent what we see in the movies and wouldn’t make the power too munchkin-like, there appear to be at least a couple of different options that are suggested.

2a. One suggestion appears to be to use the results of the Discipline check to throw someone/something into another object, and count the Successes on that check as if you had done a Ranged attack on the party/thing, just as if you had shot them with a blaster or something.

2b. Another suggestion appears to be using additional Strength upgrades (either higher ranking of Strength upgrades, or more pips to activate more Strength upgrades), and thus being able to throw someone/something into an object as if they were one or more Silhouettes larger (depending on the number of Strength upgrades you can activate).

From my perspective, 2a seems to be successful in avoiding making the power too munchkin, and may be more in line with RAW.

However, I believe that 2b is a better fit for what I recall of the particular scene with Yoda and the Royal Guards, and has a lower cost to my “willing suspension of disbelief” on this matter.

I have not yet come to a final conclusion on this subject, but at the moment I am leaning towards 2b. However, I would like to see more discussion on the reasoning and explanation behind 2a.

Thanks everyone!

I lean towards 2a. Yoda should have plenty of Discipline dice to up the damage and a Triumph or two covers the rest. Remember you don't need ever increasing force to do the damage, you can get the same with ever-increasing accuracy. We see Obi-wan fling battle droids around all day long and they always fly backwards and land on their backsides or backs. I'm sure that's not comfortable but it's a lot better than being someone who suddenly finds their head whipped back into the wall behind them. Whiplash alone could incapacitate you. For me I find it both less dangerous to game balance, more fitting with what I see on screen, to have superior skill handled through greater mastery of the move power - i.e. targeted accuracy, rather than raw force.

As to #1, I don't think it's that Physics can't explain it, so much that the assumption that a Jedi always exerts a fixed force is wrong. It's obvious from watching that this isn't so.

I lean towards 2a. Yoda should have plenty of Discipline dice to up the damage and a Triumph or two covers the rest. Remember you don't need ever increasing force to do the damage, you can get the same with ever-increasing accuracy.

In physics-as-we-know-it, that works because the same amount of force behind a 1kg steel ball versus a 1kg steel sword is spread over a much larger area in the ball versus the sword, and thus with the sword the result is a much greater amount of force-per-unit-of-area, and much greater damage to the recipient.

There’s also leverage and a variety of other factors to consider, but overall it’s the same amount of energy delivered, it’s just much more concentrated.

But I think almost all of us have agreed that physics-as-we-know-it cannot accurately describe what we see in the movies, and therefore trying to bring that knowledge to the game doesn’t really help us.

We see Obi-wan fling battle droids around all day long and they always fly backwards and land on their backsides or backs.

Right. He’s pushing their entire body. As opposed to using that force to punch a small part of their body.

I'm sure that's not comfortable but it's a lot better than being someone who suddenly finds their head whipped back into the wall behind them. Whiplash alone could incapacitate you.

Based on what we see in the movies, I don’t see how you can get any greater degree of accuracy than pushing their entire body. It doesn’t matter if you’re Anakin, Obi-Wan, Yoda, or the Inquisitor, we see them all doing basically the same thing. They’re not pushing the head of the target, they’re pushing the whole body. And that whole body is what hits the wall or the floor or whatever.

There is a different technique called Force Grip or Force Crush, which can be used against someone’s throat, but that’s a different technique.

You don’t see Yoda slam just the heads of the Royal Guards against the wall, you see him slam their entire bodies, and then they crumple to the ground.

For me I find it both less dangerous to game balance, more fitting with what I see on screen, to have superior skill handled through greater mastery of the move power - i.e. targeted accuracy, rather than raw force.

If that works best for you, then please feel free to use that in your games.

However, that does not work well for me. I need a different solution. So far, the best one I’ve heard has been the idea of using Falling Damage.

Knasserll, your comparison of grapefruits and lead shots is not valid for this argument, I fear. If you were comparing hitting a lead bullet at 5 m/s and being hit by it at 5 m/s , you would , but alas, there's no difference between the two.

Do you agree with this?: Your mouse will suffer the same damage, no matter whether you throw it at the wall or the wall at it, if relative velocity is the same.

I believe, your reasoning is that Force Move will transfer a certain amount of kinetic energy to the targeted object. In that case the object's velocity will increase with decreasing mass. So, if you were throwing a 1,000 kg object, giving it 1,000 J of kinetic energy it would move at 1 m/s. A 1 kg object would be moving at about 32 m/s. In that case accellerating the smaller of the two impacting objects would be even more devastating, contrary to your assumption.

I'm sorry, but I'm tired and intoxicated. I might try and elaborate in the morning, or the day after.

EDIT: It's your thread, Brad. So I won't say no more.

Guys, I really don’t think that bringing real-world physics-as-we-know-it is going to help in this discussion.

Can we please just stick with non-physics based discussions of how things might work best in the game?

What whafrog claimed, and which you are supporting, is the notion that it makes no difference if you throw a Sil 1 object at a Sil 4 object, or a Sil 4 object at a Sil 1 object.

Are you intentionally avoiding the context? Because your explanation of my "claim" is completely misleading in the context of the game.

I believe, your reasoning is that Force Move will transfer a certain amount of kinetic energy to the targeted object. In that case the object's velocity will increase with decreasing mass. So, if you were throwing a 1,000 kg object, giving it 1,000 J of kinetic energy it would move at 1 m/s. A 1 kg object would be moving at about 32 m/s. In that case accellerating the smaller of the two impacting objects would be even more devastating, contrary to your assumption.

You have what I am saying the wrong way around. The above is correct. I am saying that given the above it is therefore not the case that Force Move works with a set amount of force (in the Newtonian sense) because if it did, we would get something that contradicts both what we see in canon media and something which leads to a game breaking mess. E.g. if a Jedi can lift a land speeder which might way 1,000kg and we assume that they can impart the same force to a 1kg object, or even less, then they're going to be launching any small object around like it was shot out of a rail gun. We never see a Jedi in any canon media pick up a ball bearing and launch it through someone's skull at 600m/s. And we certainly don't want to follow that principle in a balanced role-playing game system. Ergo, we can argue, which is what I have been doing from my first post, that the Force Move power does not impart a fixed amount of force to objects regardless of that objects mass. It is clear that a Jedi cannot work from the principle of at X level of Jedi Power they can impart Y newtons of Force. It has to be more complex than that. You could rationalize it as smaller objects requiring more finnesse or simply that Force Move has a soft maximum on velocity (I prefer the other for my rationalization). But in either case, you have to say that they are not imparting a fixed amount of force to different masses of objects. That is why I have been consistently arguing with people who want to base rules around the idea that they are (e.g. it's a smaller object so they just fire it faster to achieve the same damage). If you take that approach, you're going to get results that are (a) inconsistent with portrayals in canon and (b) lead to game-breaking player exploits.

I know you understand Newtonian physics. My issue is that you seem to assume that I don't.

As regards the mouse vs. wall example, I'm afraid that I'm still insisting that it can make a difference. It is not solely about relative velocities. A mouse at 5m/s might have a KE of 1.25J. The wall moving at the same velocity might have a KE of 25,000J. Now if a mouse's body can dissipate safely 1.25KJ of energy, e.g. it can absorb 1.25J of energy into its bending leg joints, then happy mouse. There's never going to be more energy than it can absorb because there is no more. A 5m/s mouse only has that much (unless it's an explosive mouse, but let's not complicate things ). Hopefully all good so far.

Now if the wall is the one moving at 5m/s then obviously the available energy is much higher, and the question becomes how much of that energy can be imparted to the mouse. Now in perfect situation, we assume that the wall cannot give the mouse a higher velocity than it itself has. When the wall hits the mouse at 5m/s then in a perfect situation, the mouse cannot end up moving more than 5m/s itself. The moment the wall imparted sufficient energy to accelerate the mouse past that point, the mouse would be moving out of contact with the wall, having outpaced it, and therefore not having any further energy imparted to it. So in this perfect situation, the mouse cannot end up with more than 1.25J of energy - the same as before. And as before, if its little mouse legs can absorb that much energy, happy mouse (albeit possibly surprised mouse). Again, hopefully all good so far.

But mouse vs. wall is different to wall vs. mouse and here is where it becomes so. Our 5m/s mouse has total energy to absorb capped at 1.25J. In our "perfect situation" it is still capped at 1.25J because we can't accelerate the mouse to a velocity greater than we ourselves are moving ("we" are the wall, at the moment). But by "perfect situation" we're talking about (a) zero resistance and (b) inelastic collisions.

I'll do the second one first for reasons. The mouse is not a solid body that will immediately convert energy to momentum. Prior to the mouse attaining 5m/s velocity itself, it will absorb a portion of the imparted energy into its body - compression, bending of legs, opposing impact with muscular tension and all those things a mouse does to stop itself going squish when it falls from a height or collides with something. All this happens before the mouse attains its final velocity, or at very best overlapping with that period of acceleration. And during this period the mouse still has energy being imparted to it. And given the relative masses of the mouse and wall, the energy per second imparted by the wall is not going to be perceptibly reduced during this period. The wall, in other words, keeps coming. So the total energy imparted to the mouse will be not merely the energy that a mouse would have travelling at the same velocity, but that amount of energy PLUS that imparted during the transition phase. If we were talking elastic collisions, then you would be right. But as I pointed out in my initial post, when we're talking about damage rules, we're inherently talking about inelastic collisions. There's no instant transition between still mouse and 5m/s mouse with no energy absorbed by mouse's body. It's a period of acceleration during which the mouse continues to absorb the greater available energy from the oncoming wall.

Perhaps 5m/s is a bad example because at that speed perhaps we visualize the mouse being fine either way and this level of energy not making a practical difference. But the principle is solid and scales all the way. It does make a difference and hopefully by this point you can see why I responded the way I did. I put these principles and highlighted that we were talking about inelastic collisions in my first post. It's not really appropriate to give a pat dismissal of that and tell me I need to research basic physics.

I gave two reasons, a and b, about what was wrong with assuming a "perfect scenario", btw. B was that we were talking about inelastic collisions which is what I've just covered. But A was that we were assuming zero resistance. Sure, it's Star Wars so it is possible that this scenario we are discussing is taking place in microgravity with nothing around us. But the typical scenario is not often the former and almost never the latter. People stand on things, people collide with other things when they move... When something with a lot of mass is flying around, friction with surfaces you're standing on, getting pressed against something else that obstructs your retreat from whatever has struck you... this is very common. The potential to be hurt by something massive flying at you is a great deal higher than you flying at it. When I'm standing in front of, well, anything really, and a flying astromech knocks me backwards, that's going to hurt a lot more than me running into it. Ever been rugby tackled into a wall? I have. Hurt a lot more than me running into someone else. We're talking about a rules system to handle damage. Being hit by something big is worse than you hitting something big.

So that hopefully gives the two main reasons in support of my position, though it is the first that has been the main issue of argument. The thing is, almost of all of what you're arguing is actually not what whafrog suggested in their post anyway. They actually proposed that you should calculate from the larger silhouette because they said it didn't matter if you have a Sil 4 object striking a Sil 1 object, or a Sil 1 object striking a Sil 4 object. And that's terrible logic! As a player I would immediately ask why I can do more damage throwing someone against the wall of a towerblock than when I throw them against the wall of a house. It's just silly! And I don't think we need an in-depth physics discussion to see what's wrong with that.

What whafrog claimed, and which you are supporting, is the notion that it makes no difference if you throw a Sil 1 object at a Sil 4 object, or a Sil 4 object at a Sil 1 object.

Are you intentionally avoiding the context? Because your explanation of my "claim" is completely misleading in the context of the game.

I am certainly not deliberately ignoring context, and I don't think I'm missing it accidentally. Here is what you wrote that I replied to:

Whether you're throwing a Sil4 object at a person, or throwing a Sil1 person at a Sil4 object shouldn't make a difference so long as you have the strength upgrade to do it.

As I said above, as a player I would immediately ask why throwing someone against a really big wall did more damage than throwing them against a merely large wall.

It makes no sense from a game perspective to do it like you suggested above and opens all sorts of bizarre exploits and unintuitive outcomes.

I lean towards 2a. Yoda should have plenty of Discipline dice to up the damage and a Triumph or two covers the rest. Remember you don't need ever increasing force to do the damage, you can get the same with ever-increasing accuracy.

In physics-as-we-know-it, that works because the same amount of force behind a 1kg steel ball versus a 1kg steel sword is spread over a much larger area in the ball versus the sword, and thus with the sword the result is a much greater amount of force-per-unit-of-area, and much greater damage to the recipient.

There’s also leverage and a variety of other factors to consider, but overall it’s the same amount of energy delivered, it’s just much more concentrated.

But I think almost all of us have agreed that physics-as-we-know-it cannot accurately describe what we see in the movies, and therefore trying to bring that knowledge to the game doesn’t really help us.

What I have been doing is showing why you can't use simple F=ma to model this because a Jedi cannot be simply imparting a fixed amount of force regardless of the subject. I have been showing why you can't simply use an approach of "smaller object therefore faster" in the game. I have no idea where this notion that I'm trying to argue that it should be used to model things for the game has arisen. I'm explaining why the opposite is true.

We see Obi-wan fling battle droids around all day long and they always fly backwards and land on their backsides or backs.

Right. He’s pushing their entire body. As opposed to using that force to punch a small part of their body.

I'm sure that's not comfortable but it's a lot better than being someone who suddenly finds their head whipped back into the wall behind them. Whiplash alone could incapacitate you.

Based on what we see in the movies, I don’t see how you can get any greater degree of accuracy than pushing their entire body. It doesn’t matter if you’re Anakin, Obi-Wan, Yoda, or the Inquisitor, we see them all doing basically the same thing. They’re not pushing the head of the target, they’re pushing the whole body. And that whole body is what hits the wall or the floor or whatever.

Well we sometimes see more accurate application of Force Move. For example, people press buttons on a non-fixed object from time to time (e.g. turning on a lightsabre). It's not common and where we see jedi carrying out actions that require greater finesse, such as Ahsoka inserting a key card into a slot to free herself from a prison cell in The Wrong Jedi, it appears to take much greater concentration. So I would expect the typical combat move to be throwing the whole body but I could well see greater accuracy being possible. The Force Move power is implemented as a Ranged Attack in the rules with Discipline seeming to represent extra accuracy. What about that doesn't work for you? I'm aware that Palpatine's guards simply hit their backs against the wall but from a game perspective, Yoda's probably absurd level of Discipline skill would cover the results, imo. Is it flavour or balance that you find isn't working for you with Discipline skill?

However, that does not work well for me. I need a different solution. So far, the best one I’ve heard has been the idea of using Falling Damage.

Again, out of interest why does it not work well for you?

What I have been doing is showing why you can't use simple F=ma to model this because a Jedi cannot be simply imparting a fixed amount of force regardless of the subject. I have been showing why you can't simply use an approach of "smaller object therefore faster" in the game. I have no idea where this notion that I'm trying to argue that it should be used to model things for the game has arisen. I'm explaining why the opposite is true.

I understand your goal. However, I believe that any continued discussion of any type of physics-as-we-know-it is just muddying the waters.

That is why, in this thread, I believe we should simply stop all discussions of any sort of physics-as-we-know-it.

Well we sometimes see more accurate application of Force Move. For example, people press buttons on a non-fixed object from time to time (e.g. turning on a lightsabre). It's not common and where we see jedi carrying out actions that require greater finesse, such as Ahsoka inserting a key card into a slot to free herself from a prison cell in The Wrong Jedi, it appears to take much greater concentration. So I would expect the typical combat move to be throwing the whole body but I could well see greater accuracy being possible. The Force Move power is implemented as a Ranged Attack in the rules with Discipline seeming to represent extra accuracy. What about that doesn't work for you? I'm aware that Palpatine's guards simply hit their backs against the wall but from a game perspective, Yoda's probably absurd level of Discipline skill would cover the results, imo. Is it flavour or balance that you find isn't working for you with Discipline skill?

There’s a Mastery Upgrade for Move that allows you to manipulate objects as if you were holding them in your hands. But that does not directly apply to combat. Sure, you could swing a lightsaber or fire a blaster with that technique, just like you could flip a switch to turn on the carbonite freezing process (which Anakin/Darth Vader does during the fight with Luke, although Luke escapes before being frozen).

But that’s still not a Force Fist that you would use to punch someone in the face, or Force Hands that you would use to grab their head and twist it to the side to break their neck.

Again, out of interest why does it not work well for you?

The cost to my willing suspension of disbelief is too high.

The mechanism that we have discussed so far that seems to be most in line with what we see in the movies, and also avoids munchkinizing the power too much, is the one I previously mentioned — Falling Damage.

Well we sometimes see more accurate application of Force Move. For example, people press buttons on a non-fixed object from time to time (e.g. turning on a lightsabre). It's not common and where we see jedi carrying out actions that require greater finesse, such as Ahsoka inserting a key card into a slot to free herself from a prison cell in The Wrong Jedi, it appears to take much greater concentration. So I would expect the typical combat move to be throwing the whole body but I could well see greater accuracy being possible. The Force Move power is implemented as a Ranged Attack in the rules with Discipline seeming to represent extra accuracy. What about that doesn't work for you? I'm aware that Palpatine's guards simply hit their backs against the wall but from a game perspective, Yoda's probably absurd level of Discipline skill would cover the results, imo. Is it flavour or balance that you find isn't working for you with Discipline skill?

There’s a Mastery Upgrade for Move that allows you to manipulate objects as if you were holding them in your hands. But that does not directly apply to combat. Sure, you could swing a lightsaber or fire a blaster with that technique, just like you could flip a switch to turn on the carbonite freezing process (which Anakin/Darth Vader does during the fight with Luke, although Luke escapes before being frozen).

But that’s still not a Force Fist that you would use to punch someone in the face, or Force Hands that you would use to grab their head and twist it to the side to break their neck.

No, but we do see such things represented by other powers in the system, just not the Move power. So perhaps Yoda simply wasn't using the Move power as it exists in the rules system. Maybe what we saw was the Harm power for example. EotE is a Narrative rules system which is to say as opposed to non-Narrative. A non-Narrative system starts with effects and works forwards to results. E.g. "you can hurl X kg of mass with Y hits", and then some formula for turning such a result into damage. A Narrative system defines results and then works backwards, e.g. "You scored 8 damage with your Brawl roll so you hit them with a flurry of body blows working their guard lower and then knock them out with an elbow to the chin". The distinction to this discussion because what the EotE system is designed to accomplish is balanced results, not consistent effects. There is (obviously) not a comprehensive rules system governing what characters in the canon media do. When Anakin throws a droid through the air or squeezes someone's throat, he's just "using the Force". One might require more finesse but he's still just using Force telekinesis either way. We turn them into different aspects of the same thing in a game, however, because we want balance, progression, all that good stuff. But being a narrative game, they get broken down first by outcome, not by effect. Just because the guards jerk backwards into the wall doesn't mean that we have to or even should, represent that with the Move power. We already have Force powers that represent the outcome we see Yoda achieve. Why do we assume that he wasn't using Harm in game terms?

Again, out of interest why does it not work well for you?

The cost to my willing suspension of disbelief is too high.

I'm afraid I still don't understand. We have Discipline, which adds to damage. That's just a rules effect. I don't understand why that is a problem for suspension of disbelief? Yoda the grand master of the Jedi is able to incapacitate the guards with his Force usage. Isn't the rules system already capturing what we see on screen in a balanced way? We have some disconnect here. What am I missing?

The mechanism that we have discussed so far that seems to be most in line with what we see in the movies, and also avoids munchkinizing the power too much, is the one I previously mentioned — Falling Damage.

That's an aesthetically pleasing parallel, but as presented above by Jamwes it's going to lead to major game balance issues. The ranges you can move someone with Force Move power at even modest levels would lead to some insta-kill nemeses quite often. That is if you simply copy from the falling range. I know discussion of Physics is not what you want, but it's not moving 30' that kills you, it's accellerating at 9.78m/s² continuously and then suddenly stopping that kills you. What we see in the canon media is a normal throw in that there's an initial impulse and the subject follows a parabola and then hits the ground. Falling is more analoguous to if we saw them lift up and not only move away, but move away faster and faster the further they went. Whilst maybe that's possible (and could be an explanation of how Discipline increases damage if the finer control lets you keep pushing harder and longer), it's not what we normally see.

I would avoid using Falling Damage rules for both these reasons - players could easily achieve horrific damage output and because being thrown horizontally is not the same as being continually accelerated by gravity.

Hope this is useful.

No, but we do see such things represented by other powers in the system, just not the Move power. So perhaps Yoda simply wasn't using the Move power as it exists in the rules system. Maybe what we saw was the Harm power for example. EotE is a Narrative rules system which is to say as opposed to non-Narrative. A non-Narrative system starts with effects and works forwards to results.

The issue here is that the description of the Harm power doesn’t remotely resemble what Yoda did to the Royal Guard.

The first paragraph on page 292 of Force and Destiny says:

FORCE POWER: HEAL/HARM

This power reflects a Force user’s capacity to manipulate the living energy in things around him. It is the individual’s choice, however, whether to use this gift to help others flourish, binding their injuries and making them whole, or to steal their vital essence, ripping the life from them to watch as they wither and die.

I see absolutely nothing in the description of this power that leads me to believe that it could possibly be the method by which Yoda slammed the Royal Guard members into the wall.

We already have Force powers that represent the outcome we see Yoda achieve. Why do we assume that he wasn't using Harm in game terms?

You are correct, we do already have Force powers that most closely represent the outcome we see Yoda achieve. However, the power description that comes closest is Move, not Harm.

I'm afraid I still don't understand. We have Discipline, which adds to damage. That's just a rules effect. I don't understand why that is a problem for suspension of disbelief? Yoda the grand master of the Jedi is able to incapacitate the guards with his Force usage. Isn't the rules system already capturing what we see on screen in a balanced way? We have some disconnect here. What am I missing?

With the Move power as written, I don’t see any way that Yoda could possibly achieve the level of damage that would be required to knock out the Royal Guard members.

If we’re not going to stretch my willing suspension of disbelief to the breaking point, then I need a mechanism that allows him to do that, but without getting too munchkin.

What we see in the canon media is a normal throw in that there's an initial impulse and the subject follows a parabola and then hits the ground. Falling is more analoguous to if we saw them lift up and not only move away, but move away faster and faster the further they went.

You are correct, that what what we see in Canon is a single push, and then the target flying away.

I would avoid using Falling Damage rules for both these reasons - players could easily achieve horrific damage output and because being thrown horizontally is not the same as being continually accelerated by gravity.

Hope this is useful.

I’ll have to give this some more thought.

I still think that the Move power is the appropriate choice here, but as written I don’t think it lets Yoda do enough damage. IMO, it needs to be tweaked slightly in order to allow it to more accurately fit what we see in Canon. But, we don’t want to make it too munchkin, so an appropriate level of balance is required.

No, but we do see such things represented by other powers in the system, just not the Move power. So perhaps Yoda simply wasn't using the Move power as it exists in the rules system. Maybe what we saw was the Harm power for example. EotE is a Narrative rules system which is to say as opposed to non-Narrative. A non-Narrative system starts with effects and works forwards to results.

The issue here is that the description of the Harm power doesn’t remotely resemble what Yoda did to the Royal Guard.

The first paragraph on page 292 of Force and Destiny says:

All we see on screen is the two guards jerk backwards into a wall about a foot behind them and slump over incapacitated (maybe unconscious, maybe dead - we can only guess). Quite frankly being pushed at that slow speed into a flat wall is not going to render two healthy adults dead or incapacitated. Re-watching it now, it's honestly hilarious the way they fall over. Whatever Yoda did to them, it's not the result of a slow jump backwards against a wall hitting with the flat of your back. I think if you're actually going by what is on screen rather than hypotheses a lá 'well maybe it was meant to look like he threw them further', then you can't attribute it to Move alone. We've seen battle droids survive impacts ten times greater than that! So Harm can work pretty well for it, imo. As I said earlier, it's a narrative game with outcome based rules. Harm with a smattering of dramatic licence covers it very well in the rules.

Basically, Yoda hoists two people backwards into a wall a foot away and not very hard. That's what we actually see. I don't think it's a good idea to try and turn that into a highly incapacitating manoeuvre. If you choose to, then you're making the Move power a lot more dangerous for no particular reason that I can see.

We already have Force powers that represent the outcome we see Yoda achieve. Why do we assume that he wasn't using Harm in game terms?

You are correct, we do already have Force powers that most closely represent the outcome we see Yoda achieve. However, the power description that comes closest is Move, not Harm.

Again, if you watch that scene there's no way that those two guards should have been incapacitated by the movement Yoda subjected them to. If you wish to base it around what is actually shown, then you need to model it with some other part of the rules. And there are Force powers that produce this outcome more closely (incapacitated with minimal actual movement or acceleration).

I'm afraid I still don't understand. We have Discipline, which adds to damage. That's just a rules effect. I don't understand why that is a problem for suspension of disbelief? Yoda the grand master of the Jedi is able to incapacitate the guards with his Force usage. Isn't the rules system already capturing what we see on screen in a balanced way? We have some disconnect here. What am I missing?

With the Move power as written, I don’t see any way that Yoda could possibly achieve the level of damage that would be required to knock out the Royal Guard members.

Well it would be a base 10 damage as the guards are Silhouette 1 and Yoda should have 5Y on a Discipline roll if anyone does. So you''re looking at 17 or 18 damage which is plenty to take out two minions, even ones with high soak. Add in a triumph or two. I'd say Move power already covers what you wanted (two guards slumped from kinetic impact) without alteration. Does that meet what you need?

If we’re not going to stretch my willing suspension of disbelief to the breaking point, then I need a mechanism that allows him to do that, but without getting too munchkin.

It's going to be hard avoiding munchkinness if you ramp up damage from Move much. It is already one of the premiere Force powers. If it starts eating up the turf of other powers like Harm, you're close to it becoming a no-brainer power. I'm just offering this up as a cautionary note. As I said, Yoda can already get 17 damage with it without too much difficulty. Do you really want ordinary PCs approaching Yoda level with it?

I’ll have to give this some more thought.

I still think that the Move power is the appropriate choice here, but as written I don’t think it lets Yoda do enough damage. IMO, it needs to be tweaked slightly in order to allow it to more accurately fit what we see in Canon. But, we don’t want to make it too munchkin, so an appropriate level of balance is required.

I think what would help here is taking the approach of what outcome you want and working backwards, like some of the other rules, rather than starting with the effect and working forwards. For example, right now you're simply saying what you want to model without making clear who you want to be able to do this. If only Yoda should be able to do this then we don't really have a problem. It could easily just be a Triumph or a signature ability. The Peacekeeper preview now up for FaD gives the Fated Duel signature ability for example, which Yoda could well have. I know I keep on about Narrative rules systems being outcome-based, but you can narrate something like Fated Duel however you like. A GM would be well within their rights if Yoda's player used it to say "you wave the lesser guards backwards with the Force, slamming them unconscious to the ground". All handled within the rules and lets you model the canon scene". Alternately, if you're wanting any old Jedi with the Move power to be able to do this, then we need to start off by asking what level of damage you want them to be able to achieve. Because with the powers as written, they can already do 10 + successes damage to people. So you need to decide if 10+successes damage is not enough for some reason and if it isn't, why not and how much damage you want them to be able to do with the Move power.

I am aware that you disagree with much of what I have written, but I think that last paragraph above contains a lot of useful questions that will help flesh out how to modify the Move power if that is still something you wish to do. So if the rest of my post is not of interest or seems argumentative for the sake of it (which is not what I'm trying to do here), perhaps just take the last part as a point of discussion. If we know that 10+successes damage is, for example, too low, then we know that what you're looking for is something higher and we can look at ways to increase that or balance the increase.

There's some trade offs that need to be made when designing a game that may or may not allow certain actions from the films, but theoretically a character could one-shot royal guards with the stats given in F&D. it would just be very unlikely.

So, assuming...

-Yoda would be an Ataru Striker, which means he would have at least two ranks in Quick Strike. Since he acts first before the royal guards know what's happening, he got those Boost on his attack.

-He's also the freaking Grand Master of the Jedi Order. So let's assume 6 in Willpower, 5 in Discipline at minimum.

-The guards, as per F&D have 16 WT and 5 soak. So he needs to generate 22 damage; Yoda would need 11 Success to one shot the guards (Object and target both taking damage).

-The guards are people, Silhouette 1, so 10 damage base if he's flinging them.

-They're definitely within short range if not engaged.

-We can say that though, mechanically, Yoda targeted one guard with the other, it could be narrated as slamming them into the wall.

-If Yoda uses two maneuvers to aim, that 5 Proficiency, 1 Ability, 4 Boost.

-Best possible outcome: All difficulty dice blank, double success on the proficiency and ability dice, and success and advantage on the boost dice. That'd be 16 success (26 damage), 4 advantage. Which I imagine Yoda would use to boost his melee defense and recover strain in preparation for his throw-down with Palpatine.

-Best possible outcome: All difficulty dice blank, double success on the proficiency and ability dice, and success and advantage on the boost dice. That'd be 16 success (26 damage), 4 advantage. Which I imagine Yoda would use to boost his melee defense and recover strain in preparation for his throw-down with Palpatine.

That’s the best possible outcome, and that greatly exceeds what my willing suspension of disbelief can take.

If you do the Monte Carlo simulation, here’s what that looks like:

Here’s what the cumulative probability percentages look like:

Success Probability % Cumm. Prob. % Cumm. Prob. %

1 1.458 98.542

2 4.209 94.333

3 8.845 85.488

4 14.342 71.146

5 18.349 52.797

6 18.789 34.008

7 15.339 18.669

8 10.041 8.628

9 5.129 3.499

10 2.108 1.391

11 0.720 0.671

12 0.186 0.485

13 0.035 0.450

14 0.008 0.442

15 0.001 0.441

The numbers start going wonky as you get towards the top end of the scale. But, for the bulk of the scale, they should work.

So, Yoda would have a 50/50 shot of getting at least five successes. But less than a 20% chance of getting 7 or more successes. And just over one percent chance of getting 10 successes or more.

By your own math, he needs to get at least eleven successes in order to knock the guards out. Do you honestly think he would go into that throne room if he thought the odds were anywhere remotely close to that low?

No matter how many positive dice you can reasonably throw, and no matter how low you make the difficulty, using this mechanism you can’t reasonably do enough damage to take out a single guard with that method.

Now, if you could do Strength upgrades to do additional Silhouette of damage, or make them hit the wall as if they had fallen from a further height, then we’re done.

We know Yoda can move Silhouette three objects — X-Wing starfighters and the repulsorlift senatorial platforms prove that. So why couldn’t he activate some of those Strength upgrades against smaller targets?

Are you guys forgetting that the Move power allows for the autofire rules to be used? Just increase the difficulty +1, and now you just need 4 successes and 2 Advantage to hit one guard with the other, twice, and knock them out cold.

Are you guys forgetting that the Move power allows for the autofire rules to be used? Just increase the difficulty +1, and now you just need 4 successes and 2 Advantage to hit one guard with the other, twice, and knock them out cold.

That’s not what we see Yoda do, but that could work for someone of his caliber.

IMO, that isn’t a full solution for the issue I’m having. However, so long as you stick to RAW, that might be the best answer that we can come up with.

I’m still looking for a more complete solution. But we are getting closer.

Thanks!

Sure it is. He hits their butts on the walls and then their heads...

autofire...

So, I’ve been giving this some more thought. And doing some more reading.

One thing I have been missing is that we’re talking about taking living beings/sentient entities and slamming them into walls, etc… which means that they’re combat checks. And according to the sidebar on page 293 of F&D CRB, all Force powers used in combat checks are opposed. So, if you want to Force Move that Silhouette 1 box into a wall, that’s a pretty each check. But if you want to Force Move that Silhouette 1 person/droid into a wall, then you have to roll against their Resilience, or Athletics, or whatever other skill might be appropriate according to the GM. This should be true for Nemesis, Rival, or Minion level NPCs, as well as the PCs.

That changes the whole ballgame.

Another part to this is that an Imperial Royal Guard is a Nemesis-level NPC, with a Brawn of 3, an Athletics of 2, an Adversary of 2, Soak of 5, and WT of 16. See page 407 of F&D CRB.

If you make Yoda’s check to slam those guards into the wall an opposed check with these stats, that is no longer just one or two purple dice, that’s two or three red dice plus at least one purple die, depending on whether you do just two upgrades for the Adversary talent, or a total of four upgrades for Adversary+Athletics.

That completely changes the outcome probabilities.

Using Litheon’s dice probability calculator, against three reds and one purple, Yoda now has slightly less than a 50% chance of making only four successes. If you have him do auto-fire on top of that, he has about 45% chance of making two Advantages and two Successes, and about 55% chance of making two Advantages and only one Success.

At that point, it now becomes a lot easier to say that Yoda could spend a Strength upgrade per Guard to do an extra ten points of damage to each of them.

And that’s not so munchkin, because even nearly-godlike Yoda has a relatively decent chance of failing to make this roll at all.

EDIT:

Oh, and if you’re thinking that Triumphs and crits will make all the difference, keep in mind that even with five yellow dice, there’s still only a 35.28% chance of a single Triumph showing up. And with three red dice, there’s a 22.97% chance that you’ll see a Despair.

So even in the best of all possible worlds, you can hope for a Triumph, but you can’t count on it.

So, I’ve been giving this some more thought. And doing some more reading.

One thing I have been missing is that we’re talking about taking living beings/sentient entities and slamming them into walls, etc… which means that they’re combat checks. And according to the sidebar on page 293 of F&D CRB, all Force powers used in combat checks are opposed. So, if you want to Force Move that Silhouette 1 box into a wall, that’s a pretty each check. But if you want to Force Move that Silhouette 1 person/droid into a wall, then you have to roll against their Resilience, or Athletics, or whatever other skill might be appropriate according to the GM. This should be true for Nemesis, Rival, or Minion level NPCs, as well as the PCs.

That changes the whole ballgame.

Except that Move power actually gives us specific Difficulties for when we use the power as a combat check: the difficulty is equal to the Silhouette of the object. So at this point, only GM fiat changes the ballgame

Also resisting force checks can only be done by significant NPCs and PCS. So those Royal guards do not get to resist. They do get the 1 difficulty for being silhouette one.

Also resisting force checks can only be done by significant NPCs and PCS. So those Royal guards do not get to resist. They do get the 1 difficulty for being silhouette one.

The Royal Guards are Nemesis-class NPCs. Check the page I quoted.

Moreover, the resistance thing is only for non-combat checks. These are combat checks, which means they would definitely be opposed.

Also resisting force checks can only be done by significant NPCs and PCS. So those Royal guards do not get to resist. They do get the 1 difficulty for being silhouette one.

The Royal Guards are Nemesis-class NPCs. Check the page I quoted.

Moreover, the resistance thing is only for non-combat checks. These are combat checks, which means they would definitely be opposed.

Nemesis class does not mean significant. Also someone of Yoda's level likely has the force is my ally. Enters room. Move as a maneuver slam once as a action slam again. Narrative can have that appear to be one slam.

Also resisting force checks can only be done by significant NPCs and PCS. So those Royal guards do not get to resist. They do get the 1 difficulty for being silhouette one.

The Royal Guards are Nemesis-class NPCs. Check the page I quoted.

Moreover, the resistance thing is only for non-combat checks. These are combat checks, which means they would definitely be opposed.

Nemesis class does not mean significant. Also someone of Yoda's level likely has the force is my ally. Enters room. Move as a maneuver slam once as a action slam again. Narrative can have that appear to be one slam.

Indeed. Very much correct! The Minion / Rival / Nemesis categorizations are not about defining power levels. Common misconception. They're a rules convenience for GMs. You can and do get Minions that are more dangerous than Rivals or Nemeses. You can have a nemesis that is weaker than a rival. What they actually do is define levels of detail and specialness. For example, here are the xenomorphs from the Aliens series that I worked up for someone:

http://1drv.ms/1FwDLTV

I did two different versions - a Nemesis one for the Alien film, and a Minion version for the Aliens sequel. Is the latter version weaker? Well slightly, but it's still pretty terrifying stat-wise. What making them a minion does is streamline things for the GM so that you're not juggling multiple identical creatures and so that the encounter doesn't get cluttered up with lots of semi-dead opponents. Minions tend to be either up and fighting or down and out; as well as being harmed one at a time in order. That's what the Minion rules are about - fast play and low book-keeping, not really weak vs. powerful. The latter is mostly just an outcome of the fact that in an RPG your specific individuals are usually the tougher ones than the faceless goons.

So F&D has a nemesis version of an Imperial guard. That may be fine but it's also probably intended as a medium-bad for some dramatic moment, an encounter in itself. Two generic guards standing at a door before you face the Sith Lord? Well they ain't that. Those should probably be done as Minions. We don't actually know what the "stats" were of the two guards were just because they were wearing red robes. I mean this is twenty years before Episode IV and the time F&D is set for a start. I don't think it's a good idea to pick a high-level nemesis from F&D and then take this arbitrary and unconfirmed point to argue that the Move power needs to be able to do 26 points of damage on average from pushing someone against a wall.

I don't really get why you (bradknowles) are hung up on this and I think you are doing several things here which are counter-productive:

1. Wanting the Move power to be able to average 26 points of damage, double that of a heavy blaster rifle which is grossly unbalancing.
2. Mistaking what we see on screen - the guards are not thrown about like rag dolls, they jerk backwards about half a metre at a slow jumping speed and hit their behinds / backs on a flat wall. There is no way what we see on screen can represent someone being incapacitated by that impact. This is not someone wiping out opponents through throwing them about.
3. Ignoring that there are other Force powers that DO cover the outcome Yoda achieves on screen. That the guards jerk before the slump is perfectly acceptable dramatic licence to me that is easily within the narrative scope of other Force powers. I think you are confusing the Narrative approach that EotE rules system takes which is outcome based.
4. Not only ignoring that some existing rules cover it, but the possibility that it is done with some rules that you haven't seen yet. For example, The Peacekeeper preview details the Fated Duel signature ability which covers exactly what we see on screen in the rules just fine. And Yoda should certainly have a Signature Ability. Basically, both this and the previous point indicate that this doesn't have to be the Move power at all. So why alter Move to eat up the turf of other powers?
5. Fixating on stats for a nemesis produced for a different context and then arguing that it should be possible to one-shot two such medium-bads with the Move power with an average roll, when I really don't think you want that to be possible in the game system.

I honestly think it's both more representative and far, far better for game balance and structure, to just do one of the following:

1. Accept that Yoda doing 17 damage to someone by throwing them with the Move power (an average roll) is actually fine. It's more than shooting someone with a heavy blaster would do, so I don't think it's underpowered!
2. Accept that the Force rules actually do have things that cover what we see on screen and that you're just mistaken in insisting that it has to be this specific Move power that represents it.
3. Realize that just because F&D has a nemesis level sub-boss designed to challenge a party of Force users, that does not mean the two guards in red in Episode III are super-tough nemeses that require 26 points of damage to subdue.

Each of those three will immediately resolve this issue for you and I don't think any of them are problematic. Is there anything wrong with these three points?

I agree. They were likely minions. They are not important. They weren't even a speed bump. They were a thing to make Yoda look awesome. So minion.

I agree. They were likely minions. They are not important. They weren't even a speed bumb. They were a thong to make Yoda look awesome. So minion.

I'm not sure Yoda would look awesome in a thong....