If I were to look to change the Move power, I'd consider the following:

1.) Change the wording of the basic power to read "...one object or willing character..."

2.) Codify that moving objects using the basic power is 'slow and deliberate', moving no faster than a character as if they were moving through difficult terrain.

3.) Make silhouette upgrades when using the 'hurl' control talent require 2 Pips to activate

4.) Remove all but one of the range upgrades, and limit the Range talent to only one activation. Maximum range of the power thus becomes Medium.

5.) using Move on any object larger than Sil 1 requires expenditure of strain equal to 2x Sil of target (4 strain for sil 2, 6 for sil 3, etc).

I've never seen Sil restriction as the big problem with it, but the fact that magnitude quintuples the amount of stuff you can move with a single force point. It's a little wonky that Strength has ranks though, it would make more sense if it was just 1 point per Sil.

I think the "Slow and deliberate" portion should be expressed in range bands you can move something.

One of the main issues with the original power is IMO that it was written for characters that had a max of 2 force dice, so they wrote all the powers that appeared in early books to be fully activatable with 4 pips, which you can't even guarantee to generate with conflict on 2F, but you can always activate by taking conflict and strain when you have FR4+, and often roll outright.

I have to ask how many of you guys that want to nerf Move have had it ACTUALLY be a problem in a game. And then I have to ask how much XP did the player who was a problem have? Cause I keep seeing people freak out about what move can do. but in my experience it takes a LOT of playing to even get to the point where it can be a problem. And when it is I have to wonder if the problem is more the player than the power....

I have to ask how many of you guys that want to nerf Move have had it ACTUALLY be a problem in a game. And then I have to ask how much XP did the player who was a problem have? Cause I keep seeing people freak out about what move can do. but in my experience it takes a LOT of playing to even get to the point where it can be a problem. And when it is I have to wonder if the problem is more the player than the power....

First you have to define "problem."

In my game the players have chosen not to abuse the Move power. They are all pretty savvy players for the most part, if they want to abuse it I am sure they could. But they could also abuse Autofire, by by building a Gageteer/Gambler with jury rig and they choose not to do that either. The one time autofire was used, was by me as the GM, and took two PCs down with ease, and I think we all agreed at the table that sort of sucked for the story line.

There is no question in my mind that Move falls into one of the more abusive mechanics of this game. Personally, I've not had any problems with it though. I suspect during playtesting of EoE the issues with this power were simply not found as a FR of 2 was the highest you could get. I also suspect there was a little bit of the 'Force Unleashed' dynamic that crept its way into the power (the description of the power even talks about pulling starships out of orbit). Canonically, I think the Move power is shown to be a very taxing, difficult power to master. It took Luke a lot of effort to just move his lightsaber while in the wampa lair. It took three Jedi masters to stop the sil 2 escape pod from tumbling off the building side during the Xillo Beast episode. Yoda couldn't defend against the Emperor's force lighting and use Move on an unconscious Anakin at the end of the Clone Wars series; and when Yoda fell, he wasn't able to 'force fly' using Move. There are many, many more examples of how hard it is to use the Move power. But because it made its way into the game rules very early on, it had to be something that neophyte force users could mechanically actually use and thus we have what we have.

Ultimately, munchkin gamers will find ways to munchkin.

Sometimes the problems being caused by certain powers aren't players going out of their way to abuse them, but simply that they become a narrative crutch that can solve entirely too many problems very easily. The second you have a character who can easily lift 500 tons you just have to tell all stories from there on out without ever using the weight of an object as an obstacle to overcome. The second you have a character who can fly you have to tell all stories without ever using something being high up as an obstacle. The second you have a character who can tear down any wall you have to tell all stories without ever using a physical barrier to impede the players. Every one of those obstacles you eliminate makes the stories you tell more and more abstract and hard to relate to, and makes interesting settings more and more difficult to construct. You wind up with a superhero story where every last challenge has to be solid kryptonite to be able to carry a story.

Sometimes the problems being caused by certain powers aren't players going out of their way to abuse them, but simply that they become a narrative crutch that can solve entirely too many problems very easily. The second you have a character who can easily lift 500 tons you just have to tell all stories from there on out without ever using the weight of an object as an obstacle to overcome. The second you have a character who can fly you have to tell all stories without ever using something being high up as an obstacle. The second you have a character who can tear down any wall you have to tell all stories without ever using a physical barrier to impede the players. Every one of those obstacles you eliminate makes the stories you tell more and more abstract and hard to relate to, and makes interesting settings more and more difficult to construct. You wind up with a superhero story where every last challenge has to be solid kryptonite to be able to carry a story.

That was not my question. My question was have you had it ACTUALLY be a problem? And as to the obstacle problem. That is not a problem if you really think about it. You can use a tractor beam to do the same thing. Moral dalemna's is much harder to deal with. Do you catch the column or do you chase the Sith lord for example.

It's not about things you can't do, it's about how much of a story you can tell around doing it. If someone can pull it off by just waggling their fingers a little something that could have been a story gets reduced to a single action.

Sometimes the problems being caused by certain powers aren't players going out of their way to abuse them, but simply that they become a narrative crutch that can solve entirely too many problems very easily. The second you have a character who can easily lift 500 tons you just have to tell all stories from there on out without ever using the weight of an object as an obstacle to overcome. The second you have a character who can fly you have to tell all stories without ever using something being high up as an obstacle. The second you have a character who can tear down any wall you have to tell all stories without ever using a physical barrier to impede the players. Every one of those obstacles you eliminate makes the stories you tell more and more abstract and hard to relate to, and makes interesting settings more and more difficult to construct. You wind up with a superhero story where every last challenge has to be solid kryptonite to be able to carry a story.

Here's a group of stormtroopers firing their blasters at you but we're just going to have them fall down and die as you run past because we all know you can take them.

There's plenty of stories out there that have characters with fantastic abilities that help tell an interesting story without bypassing all obstacles.

I'd like to point out that most, if not all superheroes have more than one weakness and not all of their weaknesses are regarding their powers. Often times their weaknesses come from within their psyche or their connections to people who don't have the durability they have, the morality of the actions they take, the wavering control of their abilities and them not being perfect beings who can do no wrong.

Superman can leap tall buildings in a single bound but there are a lot of reasons he wouldn't be able to or reasons why he shouldn't, besides kryptonite. This means that having the ability to do the (cool thing here) in perfect conditions does not mean one can always do the (cool thing here) with the same amount of efficiency or effort. That also means there's a chance of failure which keeps suspense. That suspense is represented by the dice rolls and most huge things one can do with the force require there be difficulty dice, meaning there is always always a chance of failure. There's also ways the gm that can use multiple factors built into the games rules in setting the difficulty for the players, before coming to a point of needing a house rule.

Just my 2 cents.

Sure, but at the same time fantastical powers constantly compel fantastical exceptions even in shows and movies where the writers have a lot of time to figure out all the angles. An example being the Transporter in Star Trek, which pretty much on principle never works when it would actually solve a problem. There is always radiation, subspace turbulence, a shield grid or something else in place that prevents the characters from using it when it would solve the central conflict of the episode with one push of a button. If someone is being held hostage, or crash landed on a planet, or is trapped in some way the transporter never works to solve the issue. Introducing a device in the universe that can completely nullify any physical barrier as an obstacle simply requires that in order to show people actually having to go through a lot of trouble to get somewhere that device has to not work.

Even Star Wars has the same kinds of odd exceptions, like Toydarians and Hutts being force resistant, or certain pieces of equipment being "ray shielded" or "magnetically sealed" so they are arbitrarily immune to being destroyed by a blaster, just because it would cause plot holes if those abilities weren't unavailable to immediately solve the problem. The entire trash compactor scene hinges on the idea that the door can't be blasted open or lightsabered through, and simply wouldn't have happened if those were allowed as solutions. It's not bad writing that the exact same solution that opened up the garbage chute didn't work again to get them out of the compactor, an entire iconic scene is predicated on it, but it does go to show that "Blasters make man sized holes in solid metal" is a concept that the movie had to explain away just as quickly as it introduced it for the sake of still being able to have locked doors. (On a side note, most of the lethal impacts from blasters were subtly edited out in the special edition, but in the original version you see that blaster impacts cause fire to erupt from holes in people's body, which would indicate they do in fact boil your insides and set your adipose on fire, making them every bit as uncivilized as Obi Wan describes them, and also explain why a firing squad can turn someone into a smoldering skeleton)

That was not my question. My question was have you had it ACTUALLY be a problem?

The abuse of the “Move” power caused major problems in my game. That’s where I came up with my more draconian readings of the rules. Even then, the player still tried to abuse Move as he had done earlier, only to have those attempts fail, due to the new readings of the rules. And he tried that multiple times.

He finally stopped trying to abuse the Move power like that when I started throwing him up against opponents who were as good as (or better than) he was with the same power, and they were able to abuse it in way he could not. He definitely didn’t like it being abused against him like that, so he stopped trying to abuse it against the NPCs.

And when he stopped trying to abuse the Move power, we both became a lot happier about the rest of the game.

My game ended not too long after that, because my work situation changed and I had to start doing a lot more travel than I had been doing up to that point.

So, yes — I have definitely had these problems in my game.

It's not about things you can't do, it's about how much of a story you can tell around doing it. If someone can pull it off by just waggling their fingers a little something that could have been a story gets reduced to a single action.

And much like your other thread whining about how Force users were overpowered without providing any actual concrete examples, here again you're obsessing over 'what ifs?"

In spite of all your worry-warting, Move isn't nearly as powerful in game play as you think it is. Namely, it takes a significant investment of XP to get to the potentially game-breaking stuff (hurling around large Silhouette objects or reliably disarming major opponents, which as was pointed out repeatedly to you with multiple examples that you blithely ignored in the previously mentioned thread is XP that other PCs who aren't focusing on the Move power exclusively much less on Force stuff can spend on doing their own awesome stuff, including something that actually is a legitimate gamebreaker, namely being really good at using autofire weapons.

I've run a few different Force and Destiny campaigns, only one of which has gotten past the 300 earned XP, and in none of them has Move been a problem. Maybe I'm lucky in that I don't have the type of power-gaming ass-hats you must have as a GM if you're constantly fretting over Force users being too powerful (hint: they're not), but only one Force user in any of those campaigns invested any 'serious' XP into Move, and that was enough for the disarm trick, which even then wasn't always reliable due to targets being at medium range (getting within short range of a squad of stormtroopers and rolling dark side with no Destiny Points available was a painful learning experience) or being able to offer a high enough difficulty on the opposed check (happened less frequently as she invested XP into Discipline, but that's also XP not going directly into Move).

So much like Daeglan, I've yet to see Move become this humongous problem that you're trying to claim it is. Heck, Keith Kappel ran an insanely high-XP Star Wars game earlier this year where the PCs were in the neighborhood of 2000 earned XP, with the PCs being Jedi Masters such as Yoda, Kit Fisto, and Mace Windu, and while Yoda was able to accomplish some very incredible feats with Move, he certainly didn't dominate the entire hours-long session with it.

One thing that has occurred to me while reading this (and other, similar, threads) about Move is this: how many Silhouette 4 objects do people actually have lying around in their campaign settings? Do all combat encounters take place in an open landing field with lots of Silhouette 4 starships sitting around? Even in the middle of a large city with lots of vehicles the biggest movable objects around will be Sil 3 vehicles, and most will be Sil 2.

Sure, but at the same time fantastical powers constantly compel fantastical exceptions even in shows and movies where the writers have a lot of time to figure out all the angles. An example being the Transporter in Star Trek, which pretty much on principle never works when it would actually solve a problem. There is always radiation, subspace turbulence, a shield grid or something else in place that prevents the characters from using it when it would solve the central conflict of the episode with one push of a button. If someone is being held hostage, or crash landed on a planet, or is trapped in some way the transporter never works to solve the issue. Introducing a device in the universe that can completely nullify any physical barrier as an obstacle simply requires that in order to show people actually having to go through a lot of trouble to get somewhere that device has to not work.

Even Star Wars has the same kinds of odd exceptions, like Toydarians and Hutts being force resistant, or certain pieces of equipment being "ray shielded" or "magnetically sealed" so they are arbitrarily immune to being destroyed by a blaster, just because it would cause plot holes if those abilities weren't unavailable to immediately solve the problem. The entire trash compactor scene hinges on the idea that the door can't be blasted open or lightsabered through, and simply wouldn't have happened if those were allowed as solutions. It's not bad writing that the exact same solution that opened up the garbage chute didn't work again to get them out of the compactor, an entire iconic scene is predicated on it, but it does go to show that "Blasters make man sized holes in solid metal" is a concept that the movie had to explain away just as quickly as it introduced it for the sake of still being able to have locked doors. (On a side note, most of the lethal impacts from blasters were subtly edited out in the special edition, but in the original version you see that blaster impacts cause fire to erupt from holes in people's body, which would indicate they do in fact boil your insides and set your adipose on fire, making them every bit as uncivilized as Obi Wan describes them, and also explain why a firing squad can turn someone into a smoldering skeleton)

I agree that there are fantastical exceptions to fantastical powers and such. There is no dispute there. I just don't think those kinds of story threads muddle the narrative in any way. For instance again, Superman. He is described by some as being as strong as he needs to be and he adjusts his power accordingly. Others give him a hard limit to his strength (see the movie Man of Steel) but it's all more than any earthling can handle, making him essentially able to negate any and all threats to himself. However, we still constantly see him perform feats of strength in the material and there are still times when he's been weakened or lost his powers or some other reason why he can't lift that building like he used to, causing there to be suspense. In addition, the stories are focused on him trying to protect others with his strength, being the selfless person that he is, rather than just chuck buildings at every villain he meets. He's around still, decades later and can still be a fairly relevant character in modern times if written correctly.

That was not my question. My question was have you had it ACTUALLY be a problem?

The abuse of the “Move” power caused major problems in my game. That’s where I came up with my more draconian readings of the rules. Even then, the player still tried to abuse Move as he had done earlier, only to have those attempts fail, due to the new readings of the rules. And he tried that multiple times.

He finally stopped trying to abuse the Move power like that when I started throwing him up against opponents who were as good as (or better than) he was with the same power, and they were able to abuse it in way he could not. He definitely didn’t like it being abused against him like that, so he stopped trying to abuse it against the NPCs.

And when he stopped trying to abuse the Move power, we both became a lot happier about the rest of the game.

My game ended not too long after that, because my work situation changed and I had to start doing a lot more travel than I had been doing up to that point.

So, yes — I have definitely had these problems in my game.

Mostly because I am curious: What was the player in question doing with the Move power?

That was not my question. My question was have you had it ACTUALLY be a problem?

The abuse of the “Move” power caused major problems in my game. That’s where I came up with my more draconian readings of the rules. Even then, the player still tried to abuse Move as he had done earlier, only to have those attempts fail, due to the new readings of the rules. And he tried that multiple times.

He finally stopped trying to abuse the Move power like that when I started throwing him up against opponents who were as good as (or better than) he was with the same power, and they were able to abuse it in way he could not. He definitely didn’t like it being abused against him like that, so he stopped trying to abuse it against the NPCs.

And when he stopped trying to abuse the Move power, we both became a lot happier about the rest of the game.

My game ended not too long after that, because my work situation changed and I had to start doing a lot more travel than I had been doing up to that point.

So, yes — I have definitely had these problems in my game.

Mostly because I am curious: What was the player in question doing with the Move power?

yews and how much XP did they have?

Mostly because I am curious: What was the player in question doing with the Move power?

He kept throwing people around and using them to hit other targets, until I instituted the rule that using Move on an unwilling target is always an opposed check. Hitting other targets with large objects wasn’t difficult, but making it an opposed check to pick up an unwilling target definitely made his abuse a lot harder. He still tried to abuse it, and kept forgetting that it was now an opposed check, and was very unhappy when he was reminded of the rules changes.

yews and how much XP did they have?

He built the character as a Move Monster from the beginning, and we were all Knight Level.

Later, that GM was unable to continue running the game, so I took over as GM. By that time, we had probably earned another 100xp or so, and he was getting really abusive with the power.

Sounds like he needed problems he could not solve with move as well as inquisitors. As tossing people around like that is very obvious and draws a lot of sttention of the wrong kind. Probably should be getting a fair amount og conflict since it is the quick and easy path.