If you look at Korath's stats, he's currently converted to just under 1900. A buddy of mine is trying to get it down to 1800, through it world mean sacrificing his second Guardian spec.

I'm the buddy, we've got it to 1830 depending on review by tramp.

Yeah I checked the character out. Since I haven't got a clue about other Star Wars systems all I can say is the character seems cool. Very powerful but cool.

Tramp insisted on converting abilities one for one (or as close to it as possible) and the xp is determined from that. I believe a straight rebuild with fixed xp would have been the more appropriate strategy (in that it would have respected the FFG system more). But given the chosen strategy I can't see knocking off more than another 20 or so xp, and doing that would remove a few ranks of talents that tramp say Korath needs. But I think it is close to a minimal build for a 1 for 1 conversion.

If you've read the other thread then you know that I believe that tramp should not be given any position of authority not even a fictional one and especially not be allowed to be the jedi master of another pc. My absolute maximum limit in compromising on this is him being an Obi-Wan in an Obi-Wan kibitzing on anakin's instruction of asoka tano. Quite frankly tramp power trips when given a position of authority. I was on the receiving end of this back in 2005.

The impression I got from this thread was that the plan was for 2 party's of PC's in the game. Everyone would have a 1500-2000xp Epic Level character, and everyone would have a PC that's the apprentice of their own Epic.

I'll definitely agree no PC should have significant, lasting authority over other PC's, a small amount for a scene or short adventure can work... but unless the players are very close friends with significant trust it's just not worth the inevitable "like hell my character is doing what you say, that's just dumb"

The impression I got from this thread was that the plan was for 2 party's of PC's in the game. Everyone would have a 1500-2000xp Epic Level character, and everyone would have a PC that's the apprentice of their own Epic.

I'll definitely agree no PC should have significant, lasting authority over other PC's, a small amount for a scene or short adventure can work... but unless the players are very close friends with significant trust it's just not worth the inevitable "like hell my character is doing what you say, that's just dumb"

Yeah, not a very interesting game if your the lunch runner, that's how you end up with the "Rule of Two"

Yeah, not a very interesting game if your the lunch runner, that's how you end up with the "Rule of Two"

That's actually not tramp's problem... it's more along the lines of him believing that "good role playing" of a "tough as nails drill sergeant of a jedi master" is a legitimate excuse/reason for berating other players at every opportunity (ever so slight exageration, he didn't quite take *every* opportunity, but he didn't miss many)

Yeah, not a very interesting game if your the lunch runner, that's how you end up with the "Rule of Two"

That's why a group of us only lasted one session in the late-90's iteration of the Star Trek RPG. The rules strongly suggested that the Captain not be a PC, in order to avoid any power trip problems, etc. So, of course, the alternative is the Captain be an NPC. It all seemed perfectly logical (yeah, I went there) to us. Until we played...and spent the next couple of hours roleplaying following the GM's instructions. (Captain: "Raise shields." Me as Tactical Officer, "Aye, sir. Raising shields.") It's not that the GM was power-tripping, but with such a strict command structure inherent in the setup, we didn't really see a way around it at the time. Probably could've been done, but we just didn't have fun that first session, despite having a bunch of characters that we liked. At the same time, there were a few players who would have definitely bristled under the full-time command of any other player. (One insisted upon playing a Q who'd been stripped of his powers....but his goal was to get them back as time went on. The GM was fine with the first part of that, but nixed the latter part right away.)

Well, the actual idea for the campaign would have (at least for the Force users) each player playing both one other player's apprentice, as well as one other player's mentor, though not in a reciprocating relationship (ie two players playing each other's mentor in order to prevent favoritism and "quid-pro-quo" shenanigans), and not being your own teacher. How do you role-play teaching yourself? It doesn't really work very well because there's no real interaction between people. For non force users, I'm not really sure. The idea going back to the Jedi order's stance that padawans always accompany their mentors on missions (not as their "gofors" however); basically pairing PCs off like Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon in TPM.

The only real trick is balancing encounters for a mixed party of both high XP and Low XP characters.

Well, the actual idea for the campaign would have (at least for the Force users) each player playing both one other player's apprentice, as well as one other player's mentor, though not in a reciprocating relationship (ie two players playing each other's mentor in order to prevent favoritism and "quid-pro-quo" shenanigans), and not being your own teacher. How do you role-play teaching yourself? It doesn't really work very well because there's no real interaction between people. For non force users, I'm not really sure. The idea going back to the Jedi order's stance that padawans always accompany their mentors on missions (not as their "gofors" however); basically pairing PCs off like Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon in TPM.

The only real trick is balancing encounters for a mixed party of both high XP and Low XP characters.

Well, the actual idea for the campaign would have (at least for the Force users) each player playing both one other player's apprentice, as well as one other player's mentor, though not in a reciprocating relationship (ie two players playing each other's mentor in order to prevent favoritism and "quid-pro-quo" shenanigans), and not being your own teacher. How do you role-play teaching yourself? It doesn't really work very well because there's no real interaction between people. For non force users, I'm not really sure. The idea going back to the Jedi order's stance that padawans always accompany their mentors on missions (not as their "gofors" however); basically pairing PCs off like Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon in TPM.

The only real trick is balancing encounters for a mixed party of both high XP and Low XP characters.

You are completely ignoring that Richard said having one pc be another pc's master is a straight out BAD idea because of a potential power tripping, even when all pcs play an apprentice and a master. The point is you play your own apprentice so that "roleplaying" won't lead to power tripping and if you are incapable of role playing both ends of a master apprentice relationship, then you certainly shouldn't be role-playing someone else's master.

No, I didn't. The idea to prevent that is by having everyone being a mentor of someone else while simultaneously being mentored by someone else. That is what will prevent any power tripping because if the player tries to power trip with his mentor character, his apprentice character is likely to suffer.

The power tripping Richard mentioned is usually the result of the GM playing the boss of the players, or one player being in charge of everyone else with no checks on his behavior. The system I came up with has checks and balance built in because no one player has any more power or authority than any other player. Instead, they all play someone in charge of someone else and simultaneously play someone subordinate to someone else. Thus the problem isn't a matter of playing both ends of a master/student relationship. It's a matter of the lack of any real interactive dynamics, just like trying to play both parts of a romantic relationship. There's no real dialog or interaction. No potential conflict or drama because the player is of one mind. There's no spontaneity; no real chemistry. It just rings false. It really needs two people to play each part.

Besides, I'm not talking about "boss-employee" relationships anyway, but mentor/student relationships.

The other thing I would point out is that I’m pretty good at finding flaws in others, and if I work at it, I can try to help coach them or mentor them in ways that might help them compensate or overcome those flaws.

I am particularly sensitive to flaws in others that I recognize in myself.

That said, I am particularly blind to being able to identify my own flaws in a way where I could try to lead myself out of those same traps.

It’s not possible to tickle yourself, for psychological reasons.

I submit that it is also not possible to mentor yourself, although you can ask questions like “What Would X Do?”, for your favourite value of “X”.

The other thing I would point out is that I’m pretty good at finding flaws in others, and if I work at it, I can try to help coach them or mentor them in ways that might help them compensate or overcome those flaws.

I am particularly sensitive to flaws in others that I recognize in myself.

That said, I am particularly blind to being able to identify my own flaws in a way where I could try to lead myself out of those same traps.

It’s not possible to tickle yourself, for psychological reasons.

I submit that it is also not possible to mentor yourself, although you can ask questions like “What Would X Do?”, for your favourite value of “X”.

Exactly. That is the reasoning for the every player plays somneone else's mentor concept.

Besides, I'm not talking about "boss-employee" relationships anyway, but mentor/student relationships.

In essence a mentor-student relationship IS a boss-employee relationship. (And on a slightly tangental note, the best boss-employee relationship Should be a mentor-student one).

Besides, I'm not talking about "boss-employee" relationships anyway, but mentor/student relationships.

In essence a mentor-student relationship IS a boss-employee relationship. (And on a slightly tangental note, the best boss-employee relationship Should be a mentor-student one).

In a sense, but not quite. The mentor does have a degree of authority over the student, but the dynamics and responsibilities are quite a bit different from an employer over a worker or a commander over his soldiers.

Well, the actual idea for the campaign would have (at least for the Force users) each player playing both one other player's apprentice, as well as one other player's mentor, though not in a reciprocating relationship (ie two players playing each other's mentor in order to prevent favoritism and "quid-pro-quo" shenanigans), and not being your own teacher. How do you role-play teaching yourself? It doesn't really work very well because there's no real interaction between people. For non force users, I'm not really sure. The idea going back to the Jedi order's stance that padawans always accompany their mentors on missions (not as their "gofors" however); basically pairing PCs off like Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon in TPM.

The only real trick is balancing encounters for a mixed party of both high XP and Low XP characters.

You are completely ignoring that Richard said having one pc be another pc's master is a straight out BAD idea because of a potential power tripping, even when all pcs play an apprentice and a master. The point is you play your own apprentice so that "roleplaying" won't lead to power tripping and if you are incapable of role playing both ends of a master apprentice relationship, then you certainly shouldn't be role-playing someone else's master.

No, I didn't. The idea to prevent that is by having everyone being a mentor of someone else while simultaneously being mentored by someone else. That is what will prevent any power tripping because if the player tries to power trip with his mentor character, his apprentice character is likely to suffer.

The power tripping Richard mentioned is usually the result of the GM playing the boss of the players, or one player being in charge of everyone else with no checks on his behavior. The system I came up with has checks and balance built in because no one player has any more power or authority than any other player. Instead, they all play someone in charge of someone else and simultaneously play someone subordinate to someone else. Thus the problem isn't a matter of playing both ends of a master/student relationship. It's a matter of the lack of any real interactive dynamics, just like trying to play both parts of a romantic relationship. There's no real dialog or interaction. No potential conflict or drama because the player is of one mind. There's no spontaneity; no real chemistry. It just rings false. It really needs two people to play each part.

Besides, I'm not talking about "boss-employee" relationships anyway, but mentor/student relationships.

You are trying to set up a scenario where there are few to no checks on YOUR power, heck even this thread is about all the masters and students being on YOUR ship and if they don't like it, then getting off the ship essentially means leaving the game. On someone else's ship they could expel Korath for his bad behavior at the next port of call and the game could go on without Korath.

Mike, YOU don't know how to NOT power trip when given a position of authority, even a fictional one, over other people. YOU personally crave power/authority and the chance to wield it over other people. That's the real reason YOU don't want to play YOUR own apprentice.

I will NOT condone, sanction, or participate in any situation where YOU have a position of authority, even a fictional one, over another person. PERIOD.

The absolute limit of how far I am willing to compromise on this is you taking on the role of obiwan, in an obiwan/anakin/asoka dynamic (obiwan provides anakin advice on how anakin should mentor asoka) in which you play the roles of both obiwan and asoka. If your only objection to not playing your own apprentice really was it's too hard for you to dialog both ends of the conversation, then that would satisfy both the dialog issue and your desire to play a mentor character like obiwan (paraphrasing your comments from the other thread). However, if you reject this proposal (which so far you've not given a yes or no response to, because I think you're hoping to find away around to get what you're really after) then it demonstrates that you really do crave having/wielding that position of authority of other people, i.e. that you are still addicted to power tripping.

So Mike, which is it? I want a direct answer. Are you still really just craving a power trip OR are you willing to have Korath mentor Elias on the training of YOUR apprentice character without KORATH having his own apprentice. And yes those are the only two choices.

Actually, the player who would have the authority over my apprentice would have actual authority, what wouldn't happen is my Mentor character would not have authority over that person's apprentice, preventing "quid-pro-quo", "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" favoritism. By the same token, that player's apprentice character would be under the authority of a third player, and so on. Thus each and every player has one character in authority and one character under authority . This is to be true for all players equally . If not, it is not fair to every player. And, for the record, whoever ends up as who's mentor will need to be agreed upon by the players involved during play anyway, so demanding that one person not be "allowed" to mentor another because of something that happened over a decade ago is both counterproductive, and demeaning. If that means you won't join in, I'm sorry. I would love to have you play, but I'm not giving in to ultimatums over something from ten years ago and would appreciate if it is not brought up further.

While I don't know the group dynamics in play here, I have found in my 25 years of gaming that having one player in a superior position over another is generally a bad idea and leads to real life friction and bad blood. It takes a special set of players to really pull that off well without someone walking away with hurt feelings.

So I think - at least from an outsider's prospective - this is probably a terrible idea.

While I don't know the group dynamics in play here, I have found in my 25 years of gaming that having one player in a superior position over another is generally a bad idea and leads to real life friction and bad blood. It takes a special set of players to really pull that off well without someone walking away with hurt feelings.

So I think - at least from an outsider's prospective - this is probably a terrible idea.

In order to prevent that' I'm trying to set it up where no one player has absolute authority over the others, but every player has equal authority (or more accurately, equal responsibility ) through every player playing a Mentor to another player's character. Thus, no player will be superior to another player , but all with have one character in a mentor role as well as one character in a student role equally, but not in reciprocal pairs. Even the books talk about player's characters eventually training students once they're experienced enough. So no, no one player would have authority over any other player. All players would have one character responsible for training someone else's character, though.

The Stanford Prison Experiment showed that putting people in power over other people usually doesn’t end well.

See http://documentaryheaven.com/the-stanford-prison-experiment/

Okay, so you wouldn’t be putting the players into a prison, but I suspect that the results may well end up being much the same.

Speaking only for myself, I find it very difficult to mentor other people, whether in the real world or in a game. Sure, I can spout Yoda lines until the Nerfs come home, but that doesn’t mean I’m actually mentoring them.

In a perfect world, with a perfect GM, with perfect players, and a perfect game, I can imagine that this sort of thing could potentially work, and maybe even work well. But I’m certainly far from perfect, and I have to believe that few here on these forums would claim themselves to be perfect.

I dunno. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see how it turns out.

Actually, the player who would have the authority over my apprentice would have actual authority, what wouldn't happen is my Mentor character would not have authority over that person's apprentice, preventing "quid-pro-quo", "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" favoritism. By the same token, that player's apprentice character would be under the authority of a third player, and so on. Thus each and every player has one character in authority and one character under authority . This is to be true for all players equally . If not, it is not fair to every player. And, for the record, whoever ends up as who's mentor will need to be agreed upon by the players involved during play anyway, so demanding that one person not be "allowed" to mentor another because of something that happened over a decade ago is both counterproductive, and demeaning. If that means you won't join in, I'm sorry. I would love to have you play, but I'm not giving in to ultimatums over something from ten years ago and would appreciate if it is not brought up further.

Quid pro quo I scratch your back you scratch mine is not something that needs to be protected against, because a mentor can't really do that much good for his apprentice.

What needs to be protected against is mentor ass hattery towards the players, and YOU are the prime candidate for inflicting ass-hattery on a student character, and the situation your are insisting upon would actually protect you against "*** for tat" retaliation.

I actually have NO desire (none whatsoever) to be the mentor of YOUR student character (or anyone else's for that matter), and I have no desire to get you back for aggrevation and frustration you caused me 11 years ago. My insistence is merely at putting you in the both the Obiwan and Asoka roles of an Obiwan/Anakin/Asoka dynamic to prevent you from inflicting asshattery on some one else's student character. Given Elias and Korath's history, it makes narrative sense for Elias to be in the Anakin role of that dynamic, and I'm WILLING BUT NOT DESIRING to take on this role to PROTECT the other players FROM HAVING YOU AS THEIR MENTOR and thus help ensure that the game persists long enough for you to play out Korath's story line and wrap up the character.

But if someone else is willing to play that role, they're welcome to it. My purpose here is strictly to shield other players from you acting out your perception that "good roleplaying of a drill sergeant of a jedi master" is a legitmate excuse to berate/degrade other players. And I'm actually NOT looking forward to reprising the role of EliasWindrider but I am WILLING to do it, and take a LIMITED bit of your flack/gruff so that no other player has to endure having you as the mentor to their student character which I am quite sure (99+% sure) will kill the game (note that I am not willing to play your apprentice, the closest I would come to that is playing the Anakin role in an Obiwan/Anakin/Asoka dynamic).

The fact that you continue to insist on having your own student character, when I offered you a way to play the mentor roll you claimed you desired, and eliminate the dialog difficulty that you claimed was your primary objecting to playing the apprentice of Korath, shows that your real motivation is that you still crave wielding authority over another player. I'd actually love for you to prove me wrong about this, but the fact that you turned down an offer that would get you WHAT YOU SAID YOU WERE AFTER without anyone else having to endure having you as the master of their student character, says otherwise.

As for me staying quiet about what happened 11 years ago Mike, I'll go silent about it just as soon (and not before) as you stop trying to be the Jedi master of another player's student character and not before, because my only reason to talk about it is to prevent someone else from having to endure what I did (i.e. having you play the jedi master of my jedi apprentice character).

While I don't know the group dynamics in play here, I have found in my 25 years of gaming that having one player in a superior position over another is generally a bad idea and leads to real life friction and bad blood. It takes a special set of players to really pull that off well without someone walking away with hurt feelings.

So I think - at least from an outsider's prospective - this is probably a terrible idea.

In order to prevent that' I'm trying to set it up where no one player has absolute authority over the others, but every player has equal authority (or more accurately, equal responsibility ) through every player playing a Mentor to another player's character. Thus, no player will be superior to another player , but all with have one character in a mentor role as well as one character in a student role equally, but not in reciprocal pairs. Even the books talk about player's characters eventually training students once they're experienced enough. So no, no one player would have authority over any other player. All players would have one character responsible for training someone else's character, though.

the mentor player will be "superior" to the player of the apprentice character, it'll be a rock-paper-scissors type circular superiority except that people can't change their "rock paper scissors" answer randomly between session.

having a pair of players play the master of each other's student character would actually make the players have equal authority, but you're trying to protect yourself against "t!t for tat retaliation" (which you euphemistically refer to as protecting against"quid pro quo" and "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" arrangements except that it has the exact opposite meaning)

Depending on the total number of players here, it might be easier to have the apprentice played as an NPC under the control of the DM or even the PC. My group did something similar several years ago and it seemed to work out for us. The story revolved around the PCs (3), two of whom had apprentices. We described the dynamic of our master/apprentice relationship and what type of education/training was happening in downtime or RP scenes. Essentially, the story was about the PCs and the apprentices were there as plot devices only to further the story of the players.

You might consider something along those lines if you don't get enough players for the master/apprentice pairings. YMMV.

Depending on the total number of players here, it might be easier to have the apprentice played as an NPC under the control of the DM or even the PC. My group did something similar several years ago and it seemed to work out for us. The story revolved around the PCs (3), two of whom had apprentices. We described the dynamic of our master/apprentice relationship and what type of education/training was happening in downtime or RP scenes. Essentially, the story was about the PCs and the apprentices were there as plot devices only to further the story of the players.

You might consider something along those lines if you don't get enough players for the master/apprentice pairings. YMMV.

P.S. If I'm sticking my nose where it doesn't belong or isn't welcome, let me know. I'm just trying to be helpful.

Actually I think that those are great, ideas, but I DOUBT Tramp will never go for them because he won't get to wield authority over another player.

Depending on the total number of players here, it might be easier to have the apprentice played as an NPC under the control of the DM or even the PC. My group did something similar several years ago and it seemed to work out for us. The story revolved around the PCs (3), two of whom had apprentices. We described the dynamic of our master/apprentice relationship and what type of education/training was happening in downtime or RP scenes. Essentially, the story was about the PCs and the apprentices were there as plot devices only to further the story of the players.

You might consider something along those lines if you don't get enough players for the master/apprentice pairings. YMMV.

P.S. If I'm sticking my nose where it doesn't belong or isn't welcome, let me know. I'm just trying to be helpful.

No, you're not sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.

The total number of players is also another good reason for not having people in reciprocal pairs. IF there's an odd number of players, then one player is out on his/her own. And, as BradKnowles pointed out, playing your own student is difficult to impossible to properly role-play. to quote:

The other thing I would point out is that I’m pretty good at finding flaws in others, and if I work at it, I can try to help coach them or mentor them in ways that might help them compensate or overcome those flaws.

I am particularly sensitive to flaws in others that I recognize in myself.

That said, I am particularly blind to being able to identify my own flaws in a way where I could try to lead myself out of those same traps.

It’s not possible to tickle yourself, for psychological reasons.

I submit that it is also not possible to mentor yourself, although you can ask questions like “What Would X Do?”, for your favourite value of “X”.

SpoThe other thing I would point out is that I’m pretty good at finding flaws in others, and if I work at it, I can try to help coach them or mentor them in ways that might help them compensate or overcome those flaws.

I am particularly sensitive to flaws in others that I recognize in myself.

That said, I am particularly blind to being able to identify my own flaws in a way where I could try to lead myself out of those same traps.

It’s not possible to tickle yourself, for psychological reasons.

I submit that it is also not possible to mentor yourself, although you can ask questions like “What Would X Do?”, for your favourite value of “X”.