10 minutes ago, Benjan Meruna said:

How can you tell? Only Finn is in the shot. The other people around him on the planet aren't shown, but there's no reason to think that he's the only one to notice, or that they wouldn't scream in panic as well.

Doesn't sound that way to me. If you can give times when the same loop starts though, we can play the video at those times to hear if it matchs up.

Watch the sequence again. When the screams start at 1:40, you can see that only Finn reacts. The guy who he's handing luggage to is oblivious to them. And listen again at 2:02 this is where the screams start to match up and are identical at 2:05 to the ones Finn hears. And, once again, as you watch Han and the crowd behind him as Finn runs up to him, saying" it was the Republic", none of them are screaming, they're just looking up wondering what it is that they are seeing.

Nitpicking minor details in any Star Wars movie, much less The Force Awakens (much less anything by JJ Abrams), to extract hidden facts is the definition of madness.

Don't get me wrong, I really liked TFA but in a Star Wars movie you really can't do this sort of analysis. It wasn't created that way.

1 minute ago, Jedi Ronin said:

Nitpicking minor details in any Star Wars movie, much less The Force Awakens (much less anything by JJ Abrams), to extract hidden facts is the definition of madness.

Don't get me wrong, I really liked TFA but in a Star Wars movie you really can't do this sort of analysis. It wasn't created that way.

You say crazy like it's a bad thing.

8 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

You say crazy like it's a bad thing.

It's your sanity, not mine =)

Obviously rampant speculation and reading the tea leaves bantha droppings has a long tradition among Star Wars fans.

Just remember this movie was made by JJ Abrams. He's already said that he regrets framing the shot where the crew returns from Starkiller Base that had Chewie walk right by Leia. And it seems pretty obvious that "hey, we can see Starkillerbase blowing up Hosnian Prime because, uh, uh, uh, it's like a hyperspace weapon so that totally means you can see it on the other side of the galaxy" is another plot detail that just has to be accepted so the story can move forward.

Just now, Jedi Ronin said:

It's your sanity, not mine =)

Obviously rampant speculation and reading the tea leaves bantha droppings has a long tradition among Star Wars fans.

Just remember this movie was made by JJ Abrams. He's already said that he regrets framing the shot where the crew returns from Starkiller Base that had Chewie walk right by Leia. And it seems pretty obvious that "hey, we can see Starkillerbase blowing up Hosnian Prime because, uh, uh, uh, it's like a hyperspace weapon so that totally means you can see it on the other side of the galaxy" is another plot detail that just has to be accepted so the story can move forward.

I'm an artist. Think about it. Have you ever heard of a "sane" artist? It's a contradiction in terms, just like "jumbo shrimp" or "military intelligence".

Regardless of the "apparent plot hole" the violation of laws of physics provides from that scene, Canon does explain it pretty well to me. If they couldn't see the blast, no one on Takodona would be reacting at all.

2 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I'm an artist. Think about it. Have you ever heard of a "sane" artist? It's a contradiction in terms, just like "jumbo shrimp" or "military intelligence".

Regardless of the "apparent plot hole" the violation of laws of physics provides from that scene, Canon does explain it pretty well to me. If they couldn't see the blast, no one on Takodona would be reacting at all.

Sanity is often overrated.

I agree that the canon explanation isn't too bad but the problem (such as it is) is that it demands an explanation. There's just a number of those moments in TFA where it seems pretty obvious that "thing happens now because plot needs it now" that after the fact have decent explanations but the story doesn't really set these events up in a way to make them seem natural. More tightly written stories hide those moments by making them seem natural.

2 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

Sanity is often overrated.

I agree that the canon explanation isn't too bad but the problem (such as it is) is that it demands an explanation. There's just a number of those moments in TFA where it seems pretty obvious that "thing happens now because plot needs it now" that after the fact have decent explanations but the story doesn't really set these events up in a way to make them seem natural. More tightly written stories hide those moments by making them seem natural.

Well, honestly, I don't think it really did "need" an explanation. It's nice to have one, but even when I first saw that scene, without any "explanation" provided, I had no problem with it. I didn't see any plot holes created because of it. In fact, if that scene wasn't the way it was, the movie would have suffered for it.

29 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I'm an artist. Think about it. Have you ever heard of a "sane" artist?

21 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

Sanity is often overrated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKoysKaxnt4

To the original topic, don't forget we see Count Dooku force choke Ventress, Palpatine and Yoda force slam each other, and, oh yeah, Palpatine hides his force sensitivity by essentially mind-tricking (Influence) the entire freakin Jedi Council!

1 hour ago, Volt80 said:

To the original topic, don't forget we see Count Dooku force choke Ventress, Palpatine and Yoda force slam each other, and, oh yeah, Palpatine hides his force sensitivity by essentially mind-tricking (Influence) the entire freakin Jedi Council!

No. He used The talent Shroud from the Sentinel/Shadow Career.

9 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

No. He used The talent Shroud from the Sentinel/Shadow Career.

It's one possibility, but certainly not the only one.

Just now, Stan Fresh said:

It's one possibility, but certainly not the only one.

a lot more likely hand influence or misdirect. Spend a destiny and poof no one knows anything for the scene.

What about a situation where a PC force sensitive character (light side) is in engaged with a nasty depraved Inquisitor. Round 1, the PC makes an Influence check with the Control (adopt emotional state or believe something untrue) upgrade on the Inquisitor, succeeding on the opposed Discipline check, and uses a Dark Force pip to say to the Inq: "you want to slit your throat with your lightsaber". Did the PC just one-shot kill the guy? How much conflict might you assign for that? (Edit: I know assigning conflict amounts is highly dependent on back stories, context, etc. I'm just gunning for an order of magnitude here - a little or a lot).

2 hours ago, Volt80 said:

What about a situation where a PC force sensitive character (light side) is in engaged with a nasty depraved Inquisitor. Round 1, the PC makes an Influence check with the Control (adopt emotional state or believe something untrue) upgrade on the Inquisitor, succeeding on the opposed Discipline check, and uses a Dark Force pip to say to the Inq: "you want to slit your throat with your lightsaber". Did the PC just one-shot kill the guy? How much conflict might you assign for that? (Edit: I know assigning conflict amounts is highly dependent on back stories, context, etc. I'm just gunning for an order of magnitude here - a little or a lot).

Well adversary would count on this as would set back as I think it would be hard to make someone do something to directly harm them selves.

Hitting on an older topic, someone was talking about non-Force sensitives and lightsaber construction. As far as I recall, there we no limits in Legends. However, in the canon novel Heir to the Jedi, there's a scene where Luke is gifted a lightsaber of a fallen Jedi, and takes it apart to learn about how they're built. In this scene, Luke learns that the only way the crystal can be properly set is with telekinesis (which is what proved to him that telekinesis is possible with the Force, since he had never seen it before that point). It's probably at that point in construction that a Jedi or Sith would bond to the crystal, so that they would have better fine control over it as they set it in the incredibly precise mechanism. So if you go by Legends, it's entirely possible that lightsabers can just be mass-produced on a conveyor belt for all we know. But in canon at least, lightsaber construction is only possible for Force sensitives.

2 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Well adversary would count on this

What's your reasoning for this? Adversary is specifically for combat checks, and it lists which skills it applies to. Discipline is definitely not among them.

7 hours ago, Volt80 said:

What about a situation where a PC force sensitive character (light side) is in engaged with a nasty depraved Inquisitor. Round 1, the PC makes an Influence check with the Control (adopt emotional state or believe something untrue) upgrade on the Inquisitor, succeeding on the opposed Discipline check, and uses a Dark Force pip to say to the Inq: "you want to slit your throat with your lightsaber". Did the PC just one-shot kill the guy? How much conflict might you assign for that? (Edit: I know assigning conflict amounts is highly dependent on back stories, context, etc. I'm just gunning for an order of magnitude here - a little or a lot).

Influence by large is restricted to suggestions and slight of mind that mainly works by subtly altering the way someone is thinking. Telling someone to "go kill themselves" might make a inquisitor feel deeply uncomfortable and thus throw him off balance with fear (upgrades, or immediately becoming really fearful of the PC that can be exploited for narrative purposes) but I would say that barring an exceptional roll that no, an inquisitor doesn't believe that killing himself out of the blue is a thought anywhere close to the top of his mind.

Now, if you bested the inquisitor by nearly exceeding his wound threshold and you convince him, in the pit of his despair that death was the only redemption/ better then whatever fate his masters would subject him to? That is fair play because you can only convince someone to do what they might consider within that situtation. Alternatively, you could convince someone that taking action against someone else is also in their best intentions if the motivation for doing so can be provided/present. "he will dispose of you when your use has expired e.c.t"

In short, influence can suggest thoughts through conversation, but it is not full blown mind control thus you still have to appeal to some persons mentality.

Conflict worthy? Hell yes, the force absolutely hates to be used in this manner. I would have little issue with handing out 10 for a use that is overly malcious, though more subtle manipulations that leaves the individual affected to act to their own whims would be less. E.g. there's nothing harmful in turning someone over to a plane of thought they might have considered of their own accord, especially if the pc intended to support them, but turning someone into a impromptu assassin and letting them face retribution alone is fairly cold.

On 4/5/2017 at 4:06 PM, Tramp Graphics said:

Regardless of the "apparent plot hole" the violation of laws of physics provides from that scene, Canon does explain it pretty well to me. If they couldn't see the blast, no one on Takodona would be reacting at all.

Considering about 90% of the stuff in Star Wars violates the laws of physics, I don't see why people focus in on one detail to rag on. Nothing about that weapon makes ANY sense from a realistic standpoint, and yet the only thing people complain about is the "how can we see the explosions from where we are?" thing.

5 hours ago, LordBritish said:

In short, influence can suggest thoughts through conversation, but it is not full blown mind control thus you still have to appeal to some persons mentality.

This is not correct, per RAW in the FaD core book. It states "...or to believe something untrue." Period. So if you succeed the discipline check and have a dark force pip, you can tell someone that they want to off themselves. Sure, weave in "because you regret your actions" or something, but end result is the same.

Totally agree with you on the conflict, though.

2 hours ago, Volt80 said:

This is not correct, per RAW in the FaD core book. It states "...or to believe something untrue." Period. So if you succeed the discipline check and have a dark force pip, you can tell someone that they want to off themselves. Sure, weave in "because you regret your actions" or something, but end result is the same.

Totally agree with you on the conflict, though.

I would put this down to a differing point of view because mind tricks and the like are never used like that. A mind trick is a implantation of a suggestion to an open mind and theres very little to suggest in the lore that a Mind Trick can be used to impose a entirely seperate state of mind. For people like Bib Forta and disinterested stormtroopers it's quite simple to introduce a thought that would gain favour or cut down a workload. I very strongly disagree with the concept that a PC can go and tell people to kill themselves out of the blue without some preparation in the same way that sense can only read what a person is currently thinking; I simply wouldn't allow them to bypass encounters unless they were really cunning about it.

If my PC's were insistent on trying this, then I would humour them, I'm sure it would be fun when I get them to start cutting their own limbs off if not very fair.

1 hour ago, LordBritish said:

If my PC's were insistent on trying this, then I would humour them, I'm sure it would be fun when I get them to start cutting their own limbs off if not very fair.

I think that is a very good point - emphasizing to the PCs that the lightsaber cuts both ways. Force power use like that can open Pandora's box.

15 hours ago, Stan Fresh said:

What's your reasoning for this? Adversary is specifically for combat checks, and it lists which skills it applies to. Discipline is definitely not among them.

How is telling someone to kill themselves not a combat check

7 hours ago, Daeglan said:

How is telling someone to kill themselves not a combat check

Well, that's kinda what I'm asking you? Because a combat check is a check made with a combat skill, according to the rules.

14 hours ago, Volt80 said:

I think that is a very good point - emphasizing to the PCs that the lightsaber cuts both ways. Force power use like that can open Pandora's box.

Aye, I feel sometimes the expectation of the force to be used on a limited extent is limiting creativity, just this particlar use of influence seems a bit too out there; it's the kind of trick I would see working on mooks but it used on nemesis and PC's opens too many doors for abuse. I would allow for a wave of killing intent to destablise a NPC for a turn (either reducing adversity rating or adding setback dice to checks) as fair compensation.

8 hours ago, Daeglan said:

How is telling someone to kill themselves not a combat check

Only combat skills are upgraded, it's a touch weird I admit.

It would work for a creative description of how you take out a minion after incapacitating them with Influence's strain attack.