19 hours ago, Mychal'el said:

Ok, no matter. I just assumed Rai was female.

According to your character sheets, Korath is a 5'6" white male with tanned skin, whereas Rai is a 5'3" human with fair, lightly tanned skin. They both have long brown hair. Why play two characters that look so similar unless one is a younger clone or the opposite gender?

Male writers tend to use the word "fair" instead of "white" when discribing women. Males also tend to prefer women to be slightly if not considerably shorter than themselves.

And the phrase " gal livanting across the galaxy alone" sounds like a domaneering father barking at his disloyal daughter, whereas the male writer would discribe a young man "bravely adventuring across the galaxy on his own."

But the fact that you haven't revealed Rai's gender yet, as if it's a big deal, and you are so confident about how carefully you've guarded that secret, is a glaring clue in itself.

Am I wrong?

Actually, As for Rei (spelled R - E - I ) also being short, I have multiple characters of both genders who are tall, short, and everywhere in between. Of the three major female characters in the comic I'm writing, one is 5' tall, one if 5'7" tall, and one is 5'11" tall. Og my main male characters, one is 6'6" , one is 6'4" , one is 5'6" , and one is 5'3" .

As for Korath's height, and hair, Korath is physically based literally on me . Korath is me. I even cosplay as him.

As for similaritiesa betwen them, if you look again, their only similarities are being caucasian, with similar hair color and being below average in height. There are a lot more differences than similarities. Korath has brown eyes, Rei has blue . Korath has a stockier build, Rei is slimmer. Rei is Mandalorian, Korath is not.

As for using "Fair" skin, both sexes can have a fair complexion. All a "Fair" complexion means is that it is very light and easily sunburned (How to determine skin tone) , so probably not what I originally intended. It should probably be a light complexion, rather than a "fair" one. It is also used to describe either gender .

As for whether or not I'm keeping Rei's gender a secret, is my business. There are a lot of things about this character I'm keeping under wraps until the character is revealed. And it is up to me to decide what I want to reveal ahead of time, not anyone else. Those secrets aren't for people to make guesses about, or to try and spoil for others. They are for me to reveal when I choose to reveal them.

21 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

And thereby reproving I was right to call BULL$H!T on your claim to accept GM rulings you don't agree with.

BTW empirical evidence says that for 8 weeks you did accept me as the GM because you were treating me as the GM

And, once again, not true. I didn't accept your rulings because they violated RAW , and you came in as a "hostile GM", whether that was your intention or not. And even when I proved you wrong, you still tried to force the issue, making more and more off-the-wall arguments and claims, with nothing to substantiate them. And no, @killerbeardhawk isn't the first GM whose ruling I disagreed with but still accepted. @awayputurwpn and I disagreed once or twice as well over the Reflect talent. I still accepted his ruling. Your whole argument that a ship with a slower speed can never outrun a ship with a faster speed is one such case. The game rules make it very clear that yes, a slower ship CAN outrun a faster ship, if the pilot is more skilled, (i.e. rolls better on his piloting checks). In other words, it's not just the ship's speed that's important, it's the skill of the pilot. This is why the Chase rules are written the way they are. The only benefit a ship with a faster speed has over a slower speed ship is when the faster ship has more successes on his die roll than the slower ship. No matter what, whoever has the most successes wins, and either pulls away (of being chased) or closes the distance (if doing the chasing).

And, no, the TIE fighters didn't have "infinite chances" to catch up. Once the chased vehicle is out of sensor range, or out past extreme range, that's it, its pursuers wouldn't even know where to go to even try to catch up. The chase rules have a built in system for " losing " a tail. So you were wrong on all counts. Not only that, but you were deliberately rigging the game in an attempt to force me to take the course of action you wanted me to take. That is railroading . Neither @awayputurwpn , nor @killerbeardhawk even remotely attempted that. @Mychal'el isn't qualified to GM. That was his problem. He doesn't know the system well enough yet, and he was repeatedly, "rewriting" what had previously happened and ignoring what I said I was trying to do to force a specific predetermined outcome. You and he both made the same cardinal GMing sins. That is why I did not accept your "rulings."

I never wanted you as GM because of your attitude when I was first organizing this campaign, specifically your view that Korath should never be allowed to take an apprentice, and that he should never have any authority, not even command of his ship. And as for your "evidence" , Not once did I say "yes", to you GMing. I didn't say "no", either. I reserved judgment until I determined your intent.

On 4/16/2018 at 2:13 PM, Tramp Graphics said:

And, once again, not true. I didn't accept your rulings because they violated RAW , and you came in as a "hostile GM", whether that was your intention or not. And even when I proved you wrong, you still tried to force the issue, making more and more off-the-wall arguments and claims, with nothing to substantiate them. And no, @killerbeardhawk isn't the first GM whose ruling I disagreed with but still accepted. @awayputurwpn and I disagreed once or twice as well over the Reflect talent. I still accepted his ruling. Your whole argument that a ship with a slower speed can never outrun a ship with a faster speed is one such case. The game rules make it very clear that yes, a slower ship CAN outrun a faster ship, if the pilot is more skilled, (i.e. rolls better on his piloting checks). In other words, it's not just the ship's speed that's important, it's the skill of the pilot. This is why the Chase rules are written the way they are. The only benefit a ship with a faster speed has over a slower speed ship is when the faster ship has more successes on his die roll than the slower ship. No matter what, whoever has the most successes wins, and either pulls away (of being chased) or closes the distance (if doing the chasing).

And, no, the TIE fighters didn't have "infinite chances" to catch up. Once the chased vehicle is out of sensor range, or out past extreme range, that's it, its pursuers wouldn't even know where to go to even try to catch up. The chase rules have a built in system for " losing " a tail. So you were wrong on all counts. Not only that, but you were deliberately rigging the game in an attempt to force me to take the course of action you wanted me to take. That is railroading . Neither @awayputurwpn , nor @killerbeardhawk even remotely attempted that. @Mychal'el isn't qualified to GM. That was his problem. He doesn't know the system well enough yet, and he was repeatedly, "rewriting" what had previously happened and ignoring what I said I was trying to do to force a specific predetermined outcome. You and he both made the same cardinal GMing sins. That is why I did not accept your "rulings."

I never wanted you as GM because of your attitude when I was first organizing this campaign, specifically your view that Korath should never be allowed to take an apprentice, and that he should never have any authority, not even command of his ship. And as for your "evidence" , Not once did I say "yes", to you GMing. I didn't say "no", either. I reserved judgment until I determined your intent.

The chase rules are completely optional to be used solely at the discretion of the GM, that if the GM chooses to exercise can allow a slower ship to get away from a faster ship. Since they are optional rules to be used soley are the discretion of the GM, players are NOT entitled to demand that the GM invoke them. You seem to be unable to respect the GMs authority to choose whether or not to invoke an optional rule. And you have really fringe interpretations because the historical record shows you lost on over a dozen counts and could be considered right on 2 or 3 at most.

One of those is "it's not raw" but that's pretty much irrelevant because as the GM it was my prerogative to say that when RAW isn't consistent with cannon, cannon trumps RAW every time.

Cannon says xwing (close range) sensors have detectection ranges of at least low orbit to surface, you claimed that there are 4 types of sensors, and the ones in the book are for targeting. So fine, they can't target you for more than a few dozen kilometers, but just because they can't target you from more than a few dozen kilometers with targeting sensors doesn't mean they can't see where you are with the other sensors that can see you from (at least) low orbital distances. If said sensors are only accurate to a few dozen kilometers, they can't be used to target you but are useful for tracking you down which would have allowed cannon and RAW to be simultaneously satisfied, but wouldn't have resulted in your desired outcome.

Ruling against a logically infeasible (for many reasons) course of action is not a cardinal sin of GMing, and the GM not letting an argumentative player bully them into a desired logically infeasible ruling does not make the GM a hostile GM.

And seriously given how many times you've actually committed them, I thought you'd be morvee able to recognize what are and aren't the cardinal sins of GMing, but maybe the reason you kept repeating them is you CAN'T recognize the actual cardinal sins of GMing (and PCing to apparently). You've never learned that most GMs (other than yourself) don't screw over players for no good reason, you have serious trust issues and don't give GMs the benefit of the doubt until the demonstrate that they don't deserve it.

If you were going to claim I was screwing you over, and thus demonstrated I didn't deserve the benefit of the doubt, you'd have to prove that going with the flow which would probably mean that the imps got to see your exit vector actually caused lasting harm to your character, which is impossible to prove because a) it wouldn't cause any harm to your character let alone lasting harm and b) you didn't go with the flow to even allow me the gm an opportunity to demonstrate that I didn't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Claiming that you will respect/abide be a GM's final ruling that you actually disagree with is complete and utter BULL$H!T.

You could however claim, that when you agree a ruling is open to interpretation but the gm has a different interpretation than you, then you will respect and abide by their ruling.

1 hour ago, EliasWindrider said:

you have serious trust issues and don't give GMs the benefit of the doubt until the demonstrate that they don't deserve it

Actually, he did give me the benefit of the doubt despite my inexperience and let me try my hand at GMing ...at least until he thought I wasn't letting him do exactly what he wanted. Shortly after taking the up the job, however, he judged me unfit for GMing, but I believe it was just a big mutual misunderstanding. But I came to the conclusion that our personalities just don't mix at all, and we probably shouldn't try work together on anything ever again.

19 minutes ago, Mychal'el said:

Actually, he did give me the benefit of the doubt despite my inexperience and let me try my hand at GMing ...at least until he thought I wasn't letting him do exactly what he wanted. Shortly after taking the up the job, however, he judged me unfit for GMing, but I believe it was just a big mutual misunderstanding. But I came to the conclusion that our personalities just don't mix at all, and we probably shouldn't try work together on anything ever again.

My point is still valid because you didn't demonstrate that you didn't deserve the benefit of the doubt; deliberately screwing over a player, particularly for no good reason, would demonstrate that, and you didn't screw him over.

On 4/16/2018 at 11:29 PM, EliasWindrider said:

My point is still valid because you didn't demonstrate that you didn't deserve the benefit of the doubt; deliberately screwing over a player, particularly for no good reason, would demonstrate that, and you didn't screw him over.

Right, that was the big misunderstanding. He convinced himself that I was doing that, even though I wasn't. I feel like it would have eventually resulted in some sort of argument no matter what I did, some people are just arguing addicts and can't help themselves.

The bright side is that it gave me some, albeit extremely brief, GMing experience. Also, reading the Genesys book cover-to-cover has cleansed my palate from the sour taste in my mouth of Force and Destiny under Tramp's pharisaical lens.

11 hours ago, Mychal'el said:

Right, that was the big misunderstanding. He convinced himself that I was doing that, even though I wasn't. I feel like it would have eventually resulted in some sort of argument no matter what I did, some people are just arguing addicts and can't help themselves.

The bright side is that it gave me some, albeit extremely brief, GMing experience. Also, reading the Genesys cover-to-cover has cleansed my palate from the sour taste in my mouth of Force and Destiny under Tramp's pharisaical lens.

Mike despite his propensity to argue (it's been his default method of communicating for as long as I've known him... except when he was interacting with his Grandmother, may she rest in peace) is actually a good (heart of gold underneath his thick crusty exterior) person with extremely poor social skills and an apparent inability to see the world in an unbiased way. He's had a tough life because of his "it's my way or the highway" attitude, to which people tend to respond by kicking him out of their proverbial cars.

11 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

an apparent inability to see the world in an unbiased way.

Newborn babies are the only truly unbiased people, and any experience quickly changes that. Grown-ups can try to be relatively unbiased, but no one can keep their own opinions from influencing their behavior forever . I do not fault Tramp for that.

11 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

his propensity to argue

it's been his default method of communicating for as long as I've known him... except when he was interacting with his Grandmother

He clearly loves and respects her, leaving no room for bitter arguments.

11 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

is actually a good

heart of gold

Good people with hearts of gold try to show love and respect to strangers too.

11 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

He's had a tough life because of his "it's my way or the highway" attitude, to which people tend to respond by kicking him out of their proverbial cars.

If you're trying to drive on the highway of peace, and a passanger keeps on jerking the steering wheel towards a cliff yelling, "My way!" and reasoning with them doesn't work, then kicking them out is your only option for survival.

On 4/17/2018 at 1:03 AM, EliasWindrider said:

The chase rules are completely optional to be used solely at the discretion of the GM, that if the GM chooses to exercise can allow a slower ship to get away from a faster ship. Since they are optional rules to be used soley are the discretion of the GM, players are NOT entitled to demand that the GM invoke them. You seem to be unable to respect the GMs authority to choose whether or not to invoke an optional rule. And you have really fringe interpretations because the historical record shows you lost on over a dozen counts and could be considered right on 2 or 3 at most.

One of those is "it's not raw" but that's pretty much irrelevant because as the GM it was my prerogative to say that when RAW isn't consistent with cannon, cannon trumps RAW every time.

Cannon says xwing (close range) sensors have detectection ranges of at least low orbit to surface, you claimed that there are 4 types of sensors, and the ones in the book are for targeting. So fine, they can't target you for more than a few dozen kilometers, but just because they can't target you from more than a few dozen kilometers with targeting sensors doesn't mean they can't see where you are with the other sensors that can see you from (at least) low orbital distances. If said sensors are only accurate to a few dozen kilometers, they can't be used to target you but are useful for tracking you down which would have allowed cannon and RAW to be simultaneously satisfied, but wouldn't have resulted in your desired outcome.

Ruling against a logically infeasible (for many reasons) course of action is not a cardinal sin of GMing, and the GM not letting an argumentative player bully them into a desired logically infeasible ruling does not make the GM a hostile GM.

And seriously given how many times you've actually committed them, I thought you'd be morvee able to recognize what are and aren't the cardinal sins of GMing, but maybe the reason you kept repeating them is you CAN'T recognize the actual cardinal sins of GMing (and PCing to apparently). You've never learned that most GMs (other than yourself) don't screw over players for no good reason, you have serious trust issues and don't give GMs the benefit of the doubt until the demonstrate that they don't deserve it.

If you were going to claim I was screwing you over, and thus demonstrated I didn't deserve the benefit of the doubt, you'd have to prove that going with the flow which would probably mean that the imps got to see your exit vector actually caused lasting harm to your character, which is impossible to prove because a) it wouldn't cause any harm to your character let alone lasting harm and b) you didn't go with the flow to even allow me the gm an opportunity to demonstrate that I didn't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Claiming that you will respect/abide be a GM's final ruling that you actually disagree with is complete and utter BULL$H!T.

You could however claim, that when you agree a ruling is open to interpretation but the gm has a different interpretation than you, then you will respect and abide by their ruling.

NO, Elias, the Chase rules are not "optional" rules. Just because they're in a "box" does not make them optional. Optional rules are specifically stated as such in the book. For example. The Triggering Morality rule is specifically listed as an optional rule on page 323 of the F&D core rule book. The Chase rules are not listed as "optional".

14 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

NO, Elias, the Chase rules are not "optional" rules. Just because they're in a "box" does not make them optional. Optional rules are specifically stated as such in the book. For example. The Triggering Morality rule is specifically listed as an optional rule on page 323 of the F&D core rule book. The Chase rules are not listed as "optional".

What is the RAW that says one encounter should be a chase and another should be combat?

3 minutes ago, killerbeardhawk said:

What is the RAW that says one encounter should be a chase and another should be combat?

A chase is a sub section of combat. Specifically, it is a modified form of combat, with specific rules governing movement between the participants, with one party is trying to outrun another, as opposed to dog-fighting.

26 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

A chase is a sub section of combat. Specifically, it is a modified form of combat, with specific rules governing movement between the participants, with one party is trying to outrun another, as opposed to dog-fighting.

So its up to the GM to decide that even if players are trying to leave, it should be played as combat?

Wheres the hard fast rules of who has final say?

Just now, killerbeardhawk said:

So its up to the GM to decide that even if players are trying to leave, it should be played as combat?

Wheres the hard fast rules of who has final say?

Well, if one party is trying to run away instead of fighting , and the other is trying to catch him, that's inherently a chase, and thus, should automatically default to the chase rules until such time as the specific conditions for ending the chase are met . So, it's really up to the circumstances of the encounter rather than GM fiat.

20 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Well, if one party is trying to run away instead of fighting , and the other is trying to catch him, that's inherently a chase, and thus, should automatically default to the chase rules until such time as the specific conditions for ending the chase are met . So, it's really up to the circumstances of the encounter rather than GM fiat.

Sounds like all the PCs need to do is say "We arent fighting anymore, we want to run away. Chase rules are in effect." Seems like it gives too much power to players.

@Rabobankrider you still joining? Need to figure out an encounter for our characters before joining up with Korath. Ideas?

3 minutes ago, killerbeardhawk said:

Sounds like all the PCs need to do is say "We arent fighting anymore, we want to run away. Chase rules are in effect." Seems like it gives too much power to players.

Not really. If one member is already actively engaged in a dogfight, he'd need to disengage first before even trying to run. Then it is up to whoever would be the pursuer whether or not to give chase. As such, it requires two or more players (or the player and GM) to agree to get involved in a chase. If the intended pursuer decides not to give chase, then no chase commences. However, if he does, then the Chase rules go into effect. So, in the example of GM run TIE Fighters, if the GM decides not to give chase, then no chase takes place and the player's ship gets away. Combat over. IF the GM decides to have the TIE fighters give chase, then the chase rules go into effect until either the player escapes out of range, or the TIEs catch him (Close range) and engage him.

10 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Not really. If one member is already actively engaged in a dogfight, he'd need to disengage first before even trying to run. Then it is up to whoever would be the pursuer whether or not to give chase. As such, it requires two or more players (or the player and GM) to agree to get involved in a chase. If the intended pursuer decides not to give chase, then no chase commences. However, if he does, then the Chase rules go into effect. So, in the example of GM run TIE Fighters, if the GM decides not to give chase, then no chase takes place and the player's ship gets away. Combat over. IF the GM decides to have the TIE fighters give chase, then the chase rules go into effect until either the player escapes out of range, or the TIEs catch him (Close range) and engage him.

Good to know. Im thinking me and Rabo might end up in space combat by the time you meet up. Didnt want it to become a chase out of the blue.

4 minutes ago, killerbeardhawk said:

Good to know. Im thinking me and Rabo might end up in space combat by the time you meet up. Didnt want it to become a chase out of the blue.

Well, I do think we should be starting a completely new set of threads with a new opening crawl and everything. And I do want to go back to rotating GMs and/or co-GMed split parties. Do you have characters you want to play?

13 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Well, I do think we should be starting a completely new set of threads with a new opening crawl and everything. And I do want to go back to rotating GMs and/or co-GMed split parties. Do you have characters you want to play?

Yup. Me and Rabo will do an encounter, establishing our characters then will meet up with korath. Most likely in a space combat! Will need to bounce ideas off of Rabo before i get it finalized. Seedy underworld crimials, high stakes bets, intense political drama, and profit to be made for all. Should be a good encounter, just need to get it personalized for Rabos character in addition to mine.

3 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

NO, Elias, the Chase rules are not "optional" rules. Just because they're in a "box" does not make them optional. Optional rules are specifically stated as such in the book. For example. The Triggering Morality rule is specifically listed as an optional rule on page 323 of the F&D core rule book. The Chase rules are not listed as "optional".

AoR page 255 (because I have this book handy) "In this case the standard rules for combat CAN BE modified slightly to represent this." CAN BE is not "Required to Be" i.e. it's optional, also " it's up to the gm at what point the chase resolves , but in general it should end if the pursuer is able to close the gap so that he is engaged (or at close range) with his prey, or if the chased is able to the distance to beyond extreme range" you demanded the chase scene end at was it short or medium?

So by the book you are 100% wrong about this.

Well I don't get a lot of chances to do campaigns as a player, so I'd say I am still in for that reason, but honestly I'm pretty concerned about all the arguing. I don't want to spend all the time debating rules. Also am I the only new player joining this? is @SavageBob still looking to join?

Also what are the official starting conditions for the characters (xp, equipment, mods etc?).

29 minutes ago, Rabobankrider said:

Well I don't get a lot of chances to do campaigns as a player, so I'd say I am still in for that reason, but honestly I'm pretty concerned about all the arguing. I don't want to spend all the time debating rules. Also am I the only new player joining this? is @SavageBob still looking to join?

Also what are the official starting conditions for the characters (xp, equipment, mods etc?).

When you're taking your turn as gm, or tramp is taking a turn as gm, you can expect to be arguing with tramp. It's his natural method of communication, especially if Korath Lorren (tramp's signature character) is involved.

1 hour ago, Rabobankrider said:

Well I don't get a lot of chances to do campaigns as a player, so I'd say I am still in for that reason, but honestly I'm pretty concerned about all the arguing. I don't want to spend all the time debating rules. Also am I the only new player joining this? is @SavageBob still looking to join?

Also what are the official starting conditions for the characters (xp, equipment, mods etc?).

http://swsheets.com/c/yrsxmbuhr-korath-lorren

This is the character sheet for one of the PCs. 1875xp with a Superior Mephite lightsaber and fully modded (Non-RAW, Homebrew) Heavy Frieghter.

Anything at or below that should work.

3 hours ago, Rabobankrider said:

Well I don't get a lot of chances to do campaigns as a player, so I'd say I am still in for that reason, but honestly I'm pretty concerned about all the arguing. I don't want to spend all the time debating rules. Also am I the only new player joining this? is @SavageBob still looking to join?

Also what are the official starting conditions for the characters (xp, equipment, mods etc?).

I think I'll bow out for the same reasons you named. I'm used to rules-light, collaborative-story roleplaying, and this game seems to be going in another direction (no disrespect meant to anyone involved).

3 hours ago, Rabobankrider said:

Well I don't get a lot of chances to do campaigns as a player, so I'd say I am still in for that reason, but honestly I'm pretty concerned about all the arguing. I don't want to spend all the time debating rules. Also am I the only new player joining this? is @SavageBob still looking to join?

Also what are the official starting conditions for the characters (xp, equipment, mods etc?).

7 minutes ago, SavageBob said:

I think I'll bow out for the same reasons you named. I'm used to rules-light, collaborative-story roleplaying, and this game seems to be going in another direction (no disrespect meant to anyone involved).

Isnt tramp in one of your games, Rabo? How is that going?