I always allow Positive Spin to drive down Obligation just like it can drive up Duty. If the PC has both, they can choose which to target. "Well, Jabba -- did you see the holos? People are really talking about how influential you're getting in the Inner Rim! We did that for you, big guy. So, about that debt..."

17 hours ago, Nytwyng said:

"Would?" "Should?" Why?

A game rooted in EotE, but allowing all specs "should" use Duty? Duty to...what?

Let's take a look at an example of another property that would not only be a mixed group under this system, but also the specific example that many use to describe EotE: Firefly. Mal and Zoe would, most certainly, have AoR careers & specs. But what in the 'verse would their Duties be? I'd say they wouldn't have any, because they're not part of the military anymore. They're squarely in an EotE campaign, and they're running with Obligation.

I would say that their “duty” would be to their crew. This could also apply to membership in any organization, given that the primary thing that the Duty mechanic provides is prestige and recognition, as well as the potential for some nice equipment. Regardless, the Propagsndist spec is specifically designed to be part of a large, typically political, organization, and that would certainly entail duty to that organization and the resulting perks gained from it. As such the Duty mechanic is pretty much a necessity for that spec.

56 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I would say that their “duty” would be to their crew. This could also apply to membership in any organization, given that the primary thing that the Duty mechanic provides is prestige and recognition, as well as the potential for some nice equipment.

Such a duty would most certainly be homebrewed, because none of the existing duties come close to applying to a 9-person crew of smugglers. And, given the series, exactly what prestige, recognition, or nice equipment was ever in their grasp? Nah...they’re running on pure Obligation. More specifically, what you describe could be covered by the “dutybound” or “responsibility” Obligations from the EotE CRB or the “crew” Obligation from Special Modifications.

56 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Regardless, the Propagsndist spec is specifically designed to be part of a large, typically political, organization, and that would certainly entail duty to that organization and the resulting perks gained from it. As such the Duty mechanic is pretty much a necessity for that spec.

And yet - as noted previously - only one Talent in that tree is specifically tied to an organization of any kind, and it’s an opposing organization that takes penalty on success. Nothing about the spec requires it to be used by a character using the Duty mechanic, yet there are specs that are useless without it.

Which is the point we’ve been trying to make: just because there are talents that specifically impact or are impacted by a certain mechanic, that mechanic is not required to be used.

29 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

Such a duty would most certainly be homebrewed, because none of the existing duties come close to applying to a 9-person crew of smugglers. And, given the series, exactly what prestige, recognition, or nice equipment was ever in their grasp? Nah...they’re running on pure Obligation. More specifically, what you describe could be covered by the “dutybound” or “responsibility” Obligations from the EotE CRB or the “crew” Obligation from Special Modifications.

And yet - as noted previously - only one Talent in that tree is specifically tied to an organization of any kind, and it’s an opposing organization that takes penalty on success. Nothing about the spec requires it to be used by a character using the Duty mechanic, yet there are specs that are useless without it.

Which is the point we’ve been trying to make: just because there are talents that specifically impact or are impacted by a certain mechanic, that mechanic is not required to be used.

Yes it is, at least for the game the spec was intended for. I was reading the Duty rule earlier today, and for the most part what the Duty mechanic really is is a reputation . To be more accurate, it’s a positive rep you build within your particular expertise among your peers that garners you certain perks and status. It doesn’t require specific membership in the Rebellion, though that is the expected assumption. If you were playing an Imperial campaign, the Duty would be with the Empire, for instance.

For example, if I were to assign a Duty to Han, it would be for his skill and bravado as a pilot, with his achievements with the Kessel Run increasing his Duty several fold, granting him the praise and admiration of his peers, and greater opportunities as a smuggler.

Of course, if you were really playing a strictly EotE game, why would you include specs from another line? The Propagandist spec was specifically designed for use with the Duty mechanic, a core mechanic of AoR, and absolutely necessary to fully use that spec. Regardless, the Duty mechanic isn’t itself an optional rule for the system. It is a core mechanic, just as Obligation and Morality are.

4 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Of course, if you were really playing a strictly EotE game, why would you include specs from another line? The Propagandist spec was specifically designed for use with the Duty mechanic, a core mechanic of AoR, and absolutely necessary to fully use that spec. Regardless, n wthe Duty mechanic isn’t itself an optional rule for the system. It is a core mechanic, just as Obligation and Morality are.

You're using semantics arguments again Tramp, trying to make a word argument based on using "strictly" to mean whatever you want it to mean. But I will address the meta question in a straightforward way.

Careers and specializations only help determine what a character is good at, but beyond that they have little to nothing to do with their narrative/their story. The players choose specs that best represent what they they their characters to be good at, but the GM chooses the game(s) within the system based on the type of stor(y/ies) the group collectively wants to tell, and that determines whether individual PCs should be using obligation, duty, or morality. Now FaD specs capabilities run kind of counter to a lot of possible EotE and AoR stories, but the capabilities of AoR and EotE careers and specs are pretty similar (certain specs actually occur in both) are well suited to telling both or either AoR and/or EotE stories.

For example, if I was going to play a mechanic in either an EotE or AoR game I'd want to play an engineer:mechanic rather than a technician:mechanic, for starters because of engineer gets ranged light while technician doesn't.

Pretty much sums it up, Elias.

14 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

You're using semantics arguments again Tramp, trying to make a word argument based on using "strictly" to mean whatever you want it to mean. But I will address the meta question in a straightforward way.

Careers and specializations only help determine what a character is good at, but beyond that they have little to nothing to do with their narrative/their story. The players choose specs that best represent what they they their characters to be good at, but the GM chooses the game(s) within the system based on the type of stor(y/ies) the group collectively wants to tell, and that determines whether individual PCs should be using obligation, duty, or morality. Now FaD specs capabilities run kind of counter to a lot of possible EotE and AoR stories, but the capabilities of AoR and EotE careers and specs are pretty similar (certain specs actually occur in both) are well suited to telling both or either AoR and/or EotE stories.

For example, if I was going to play a mechanic in either an EotE or AoR game I'd want to play an engineer:mechanic rather than a technician:mechanic, for starters because of engineer gets ranged light while technician doesn't.

Yes, and Positive Spin is specifically a talent for building a reputation. And that is what the Duty mechanic is. It's a reputation .

FYI, another spec that has Positive Spin is the Figurehead spec from the Commander career. Both specs revolve around talents for influencing or leading large crowds. The Figurehead has talents, such as Command , Inspiring Rhetoric , Commanding Presence , Natural Leader , etc. Propagandist has talents such as Cutting Question , In the Know , Bad Press , etc. All of these are designed around influencing people's opinions or leading larger groups of people, either through direct leadership ( Figurehead ), or through the use of media ( Propagandist ). Positive Spin increases a character's reputation through the Duty mechanic. This, in turn makes it easier to influence people , via increased access to resources, making contacts, and increasing overall influence . In other words, both Specializations are built around talents designed for the political arena. That is an arena pretty exclusive to AoR . EotE doesn't deal with politics . F&D doesn't deal with politics . It is because of the political , as well as military, focus of AoR, that the Duty mechanic is such a fundamental mechanic for that line , not the other two.

As such, they require building solid reputations. That is where Positive Spin comes in. It boosts your reputation, which is what the Duty mechanic is. The higher your reputation (Duty), the more effective you are in that arena.

It is also why the Positive Spin talents are exclusive to Age of Rebellion . In fact, If I am not mistaken, they are toe only talents completely exclusive to any one line because they are tied directly to that line's core mechanic.

26 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, and Positive Spin is specifically a talent for building a reputation. And that is what the Duty mechanic is. It's a reputation .

FYI, another spec that has Positive Spin is the Figurehead spec from the Commander career. Both specs revolve around talents for influencing or leading large crowds. The Figurehead has talents, such as Command , Inspiring Rhetoric , Commanding Presence , Natural Leader , etc. Propagandist has talents such as Cutting Question , In the Know , Bad Press , etc. All of these are designed around influencing people's opinions or leading larger groups of people, either through direct leadership ( Figurehead ), or through the use of media ( Propagandist ). Positive Spin increases a character's reputation through the Duty mechanic. This, in turn makes it easier to influence people , via increased access to resources, making contacts, and increasing overall influence . In other words, both Specializations are built around talents designed for the political arena. That is an arena pretty exclusive to AoR . EotE doesn't deal with politics . F&D doesn't deal with politics . It is because of the political , as well as military, focus of AoR, that the Duty mechanic is such a fundamental mechanic for that line , not the other two.

As such, they require building solid reputations. That is where Positive Spin comes in. It boosts your reputation, which is what the Duty mechanic is. The higher your reputation (Duty), the more effective you are in that arena.

It is also why the Positive Spin talents are exclusive to Age of Rebellion . In fact, If I am not mistaken, they are toe only talents completely exclusive to any one line because they are tied directly to that line's core mechanic.

First of you quoted me but you didn't actually reply to/directly address anything I said, and I'm calling you on it, you're attempts at distraction/ to change the subject/change the narrative "don't work on me boy".

And you're either not aware, or making a feeble attempt at bluffing/distracting away from the politico spec in the colonists career, so "politics" aren't exclusive to AoR.

But while a few talents in AoR, e.g. positive spin, aren't relevant to EotE or FaD, the careers and specs are/can be, especially when AoR an EotE are cross pollinating. The FaD sentinel career, racer spec, shadow spec and maybe a few others fit perfectly in a EotE game though.

18 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

First of you quoted me but you didn't actually reply to/directly address anything I said, and I'm calling you on it, you're attempts at distraction/ to change the subject/change the narrative "don't work on me boy".

And you're either not aware, or making a feeble attempt at bluffing/distracting away from the politico spec in the colonists career, so "politics" aren't exclusive to AoR.

But while a few talents in AoR, e.g. positive spin, aren't relevant to EotE or FaD, the careers and specs are/can be, especially when AoR an EotE are cross pollinating. The FaD sentinel career, racer spec, shadow spec and maybe a few others fit perfectly in a EotE game though.

Yes, I did address what you were talking about. Specifically your argument that specs don't always have much to do with the narrative of the game , and this is where I disagree, particularly with the examples I gave. Yes, in many cases, you may be correct, but in others, that is not the case, and Figurehead and Propagandist are two such cases. Those specs are built completely around the political arena, virtually all of their talents are built for either direct leadership, or using the influence of the media, to sway large crowds. They are politically focused, requiring high reputations. So, while I agree that most of the careers and specs can be useful in cross pollinating between lines. There are specs which are specifically suited to a particular arena, and as such require a particular core mechanic to be in play . Propagandist and Figurehead are two such specs, as are their base careers . If you are going to bring in careers and specs from one line into another, it behoves you to include any core mechanics required for that career and spec to be properly utilized. To my knowledge, the Positive Spin talents are the only talents in the entire system which require that a certain line's core mechanic be in play, and that is because of the unique nature and particular focus of the two specs and careers into which these talents are built.

Ship's Captain is another specialization which is specifically built around a particular narrative focus. In this case, commanding a relatively large starship. So, yes, there are specializations which have a very particular narrative focus, and, therefore, have everything to do with the narrative.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, I did address what you were talking about. Specifically your argument that specs don't always have much to do with the narrative of the game , and this is where I disagree, particularly with the examples I gave. Yes, in many cases, you may be correct, but in others, that is not the case, and Figurehead and Propagandist are two such cases. Those specs are built completely around the political arena, virtually all of their talents are built for either direct leadership, or using the influence of the media, to sway large crowds. They are politically focused, requiring high reputations. So, while I agree that most of the careers and specs can be useful in cross pollinating between lines. There are specs which are specifically suited to a particular arena, and as such require a particular core mechanic to be in play . Propagandist and Figurehead are two such specs, as are their base careers . If you are going to bring in careers and specs from one line into another, it behoves you to include any core mechanics required for that career and spec to be properly utilized. To my knowledge, the Positive Spin talents are the only talents in the entire system which require that a certain line's core mechanic be in play, and that is because of the unique nature and particular focus of the two specs and careers into which these talents are built.

Ship's Captain is another specialization which is specifically built around a particular narrative focus. In this case, commanding a relatively large starship. So, yes, there are specializations which have a very particular narrative focus, and, therefore, have everything to do with the narrative.

A meandering response without specifying how it relates doesn't directly address what you were supposedly replying to, and even with the explanation you just added it's still pretty tangential. I have no clue as to why you keep trying to change the subject, after having already lost this arguement on multiple grounds... maybe your hoping if you can pull of a miraculous come from behind upset victory you might convince someone to change their minds and decide that your argumentative behaviour was somehow in someway post facto reasonable and that it's worth giving yet another second chance to play Korath? If that's your plan well I've got news for you, that's not how normal people react to argumentative people (and yes I realize that there's no such thing as a normal person, we're all abnormal in some way, but that's besides the point)

It's already been indisputably established that you refused to play with me as GM because I was following actual chase scene (and full throttle) RAW rather than your absolutely incorrect interpretation of RAW, even though my justification for following the actual RAW was based on CANNON rather than RAW (which does not agree with CANNON) sensor behavior.

So the current argument is supposedly about whether it's the GM's or player's option to decided when to switch from the default combat movement rules, to the special case chase rules, and you're arguing that the players get to demand a chase scene be invoked because there are talents that are useless if the GM chooses to never invoke those special case rules because FFG wouldn't have put in talents to spend xp on that would be wasted if the players didn't get to demand when they were applicable/invoked and that somehow proves that it's the players not GM's option when if ever to invoke the special case rules. But that's obviously not a true statement because there are talents that affect duty that are useless if duty isn't being used, and now you're trying to argue that if there is a character with those duty specific talents then it's for some reason required for the duty mechanic to be used. Dude give it up, the nonsensical "logic" your spewing doesn't follow because

A) politics aren't the only thing the relevant AoR specs (the ones with the duty talents) are good for

B) all 3 lines have specs well suited for dealing with politics (e.g. the "politico" in the EotE colonist career)

C) you don't have the authority to require other gamers to only use the specs the way you think they should be used, so this is a completely absurd and pointless argument to make.

D) even if the whole world decided to follow your lead on this, it'd have had zero effect on the outcome of the game, because back when I was GM you put forth a reasonable argument that convinced me to allow a chase scene, and I did allow it, but then you as noted above refused to continue to play with me as GM because I was following the actual RAW on the special case chase rules and full throttle talent and you had a now indisputably wrong interpretation of that RAW which you were demanding that I follow and I didn't give into your demands. The point is there is no way you're going to convince anyone that your argumentative behavior in this thread was reasonable, and therefore that they should give you another second chance to play Korath the way you want to. Moreover, continuing to argue when it is pointless to do so only reinforces the public perception that you would ad naseum argue with the GM about rulings you didn't agree with.

And in case you didn't catch this, A) B) and C) were directly addressing your post that I quoted and the rest of this post was to put this in context because we have gone really far off topic.

2 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, I did address what you were talking about. Specifically your argument that specs don't always have much to do with the narrative of the game , and this is where I disagree, particularly with the examples I gave. Yes, in many cases, you may be correct, but in others, that is not the case, and Figurehead and Propagandist are two such cases. Those specs are built completely around the political arena, virtually all of their talents are built for either direct leadership, or using the influence of the media, to sway large crowds. They are politically focused, requiring high reputations. So, while I agree that most of the careers and specs can be useful in cross pollinating between lines. There are specs which are specifically suited to a particular arena, and as such require a particular core mechanic to be in play . Propagandist and Figurehead are two such specs, as are their base careers . If you are going to bring in careers and specs from one line into another, it behoves you to include any core mechanics required for that career and spec to be properly utilized. To my knowledge, the Positive Spin talents are the only talents in the entire system which require that a certain line's core mechanic be in play, and that is because of the unique nature and particular focus of the two specs and careers into which these talents are built.

Ship's Captain is another specialization which is specifically built around a particular narrative focus. In this case, commanding a relatively large starship. So, yes, there are specializations which have a very particular narrative focus, and, therefore, have everything to do with the narrative.

Also I'm not going to let you control the narrative by mischaracterizing my statements and arguing against the mischaracterization to make yourself seem more reasonable.

I didn't say careers and specs had no narrative focus, I said they had no narrative focus BEYOND THEIR CAPABILITIES, the ship's captain's capabilities make them well suited to captaining a ship, possibly a large one though they work good for a uwing too. If you're going to prove me wrong on this point you're going to have to find an inseparable narrative focus not represented in a spec's or career's capabilities which I believe is logically impossible

Edit: retired clone trooper is an ARGUABLE counter example to my position on this, but technically the rules only require the character to be a human Male, and don't even restrict era. If a GM were to rule that such a character had to be a clone, there's nothing in the rules that requires the character to be a clone of jango fett. And there was a lot of outcry on these boards about sticking the human male requirement on the tree.

No. I refused your GMing because of how you were breaking the rules regarding sensors and range bands, as well as trying to deny me three full rounds of actions. On top of that basically robbing me of the advantage I had legitimately gained through rolling those seven Advantages, essentially resetting the chase back to the beginning. There was also the issue of your faulty assertion that the vehicle with The faster speed always beats a slower ship and will always catch (or outrun) the ship with a slower speed, which the rules say is flat out wrong. No matter what, whoever has the most successes in the Competitive check pulls ahead by at least one range band. It is only when the faster ship has more successes than the slower ship that he adds the difference between their speeds to the number of range bands he closes or pulls away by.

Not only that, but your “rulings” were specifically intended to force me to go orbital putting me in direct confrontation with a Star Destroyer. In other words, you were trying to force my hand. You were robbing me of player agency to take the actions I needed to avoid a combat the Jedi Star was ill-prepared to fight. That is why I refused you as GM. It had nothing to do with how I interpreted the Full Throttle talents, rightly or wrongly.

The other reason why I didn’t want you as GM is because of the bias you have repeatedly shown against Korath, including your assertion that he should never have any “authority”, apprentices, Command over his ship, etc. and your repeated attempts to sabotage the campaign from the very beginning when I first proposed the idea. This includes Repeatedly bringing up that old D20 campaign and the “issues” we had at the end. That alone tells me that you still hold a grudge ove it. You have repeatedly tried to prejudice people against me playing this character in a campaign.

That at is why I didn’t want you as GM.

Don’t you understand how angry that makes me and how much that hurts?

I'll pipe in one more time, then bow out. Why don't you two retire this thread? Nothing productive is coming from it now.

You don't get get to control the narrative through revisionist history and taking things out of context

Regarding sensors

1) Sensor RAW is wonky/goes against direct onscreen cannon evidence and I went with cannon over wonky RAW and I don't know of any GMs on these boards who would fault me for that (there's been multiple threads about how to household sensors to be sensible)

2) the only effect my sensor ruling has was to justify requiring you to get beyond extreme range to terminate the chase sceen with your escape, which just so happens to be the RAW default for chase scenes, while you were trying to use the sensor RAW to demand that I terminate the chase scene at medium range (that you were demanding anything about the terminating condition of a chase scene was itself against RAW)

Regarding a difference in speeds and who wins a chase scene... it is the GM's prerogative when and when not to allow a chase scene and that you could over come speed difference of 2 was beyond the bounds of credibility for me, a speed difference of 1 I would of rolled with and upgraded the difficulty of one side of the competitive check. So rather than rule out a chase scene entirely, I let you engage in a chase scene in those rounds you had supreme full throttle active, and effectively not participate in a chase scene in those rounds in which you didn't. That seems like a fair and reasonable compromise to me.

I have no idea where you could have gotten 3 rounds of actions, maybe the 2 rounds you had to be travelling at speed 3 so your droid could remove the tracker from your hull, but your 7 advantage bought you the 2 rounds of traveling at speed 3 without the fighters taking pot shots at you, so you weren't robbed and it wasn't wasted.

I've said multiple times now that going orbital would NOT have put you in direct confrontation with a star destroyer, so grow up and stop being delusional/asserting blatant falsehoods/mischaracterizing the situation,

As for robbing you of player agency, that's another falsehood/delusion, it's the GM's job description to set the difficulty of proposed actions, setting the difficulty of a ridiculously infeasible course of action pretty high is just part of GMing, maybe you could argue that me not even letting you attempt a ridiculously infeasible course of action would have been robbing you of player action but A) that's a dubious argument and B) I didn't say no, I just the difficulty high in a way that respected RAW.

If you're going to claim I was biased against Korath I'd have to actually be wrong about how you'd behave when you played him. As turns out I was almost presciently accurate. I know you better than anyone else on these boards and of the two of us I'm the only one with a largely unbiased view of your behavior, particularly when you play Korath.

In case you didn't know, I was following you in the Revan's war play by post, and you actually seem fairly willing to compromise, go with the flow adhere to GM rulings when you're playing the wookiee. But when you're playing Korath, you get a lot more authoritarian, demanding things have to happen how you think they should and you bullied killer beard hawk into running the chase scene according to how you (incorrectly) interpreted RAW. And that was after I butted out. You've also been pretty authoritarian in you efforts to coerce somebody into playing Korath's apprentice. So yeah I'm batting 1000 when it comes to predicting how you behave towards the other gamers involved when Korath is involved. The point is YOU ARE WAY TO CLOSE TO KORATH TO BE UNBIASED ABOUT HIM/YOURSELF WHEN YOU PLAY HIM.

Also, I know you don't see it this way but it's been my intent for years to help you get to finish out Korath's story, because left to your own devices I was pretty darn sure that wasn't going to happen. We had multiple debates where I turned you on to the merits of this system, I've been buying you FaD books for birthday and Christmas, I helped you build Korath the way you wanted him even though I was firmly convinced it was a pretty sucky build, and my interference in this campaign, yes I was running interference, trying to ensure that everyone involved got to play a character they could enjoy, because that would give you the best chance of playing Korath at all. And when this fell apart the first 3 times, that was all you, and I volunteered to take over so you would get to play Korath when A) I really didn't have the time and B) had no desire to deal with the argumentitive hassle you are when you play Korath, but I did it anyway because I want you to be able to play Korath and finish up his story, then the game fell apart a 5th time because you bullied killer bears hawk into ruling how you wanted and it turned out you were wrong about how you were interpreting RAW, and I offered to GM again, do you even know how much I've dreaded your next response/argument in this thread? I really don't want to GM for you, but I keep offering because I want you to be able to play Korath. I am firmly against you abusing other players and GMs, which is why I've ACCURATELY warned them about what they're getting themselves into, but I've been willing to deal with you as Korath myself because I want you to be able to play Korath and I have more tolerance for your argumentativeness than anyone else on these boards, maybe more than anyone else in the world with the possible exception of members of your family.

That is not bias against Korath, and I've gotten past the knee jerk emotional response trauma that was that D20 campaign (which started in session zero, not late in the game BTW).

I'm not trying to be hurtful, I'm trying to get you an opportunity to play Korath in as close to the way you want as possible, but I don't believe that there is anyone on the planet who would be willing to game with you playing Korath as you fully want to. So I've been trying to moderate you as Korath into an experience other gamers would be willing to tolerate, and what I've gotten from you in return is accusations of bias and sabotage. Remember that this thing fell apart at least 3 times without my involvement.

55 minutes ago, SavageBob said:

I'll pipe in one more time, then bow out. Why don't you two retire this thread? Nothing productive is coming from it now.

Didn't see this till now (after I posted), I think you're right. I'm out

16 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

You don't get get to control the narrative through revisionist history and taking things out of context

Regarding sensors

1) Sensor RAW is wonky/goes against direct onscreen cannon evidence and I went with cannon over wonky RAW and I don't know of any GMs on these boards who would fault me for that (there's been multiple threads about how to household sensors to be sensible)

2) the only effect my sensor ruling has was to justify requiring you to get beyond extreme range to terminate the chase sceen with your escape, which just so happens to be the RAW default for chase scenes, while you were trying to use the sensor RAW to demand that I terminate the chase scene at medium range (that you were demanding anything about the terminating condition of a chase scene was itself against RAW)

And, once again, you would be wrong. Passive sensors only work within the immediate range of a ship. That is canon . From the New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels, page XIV:

Quote

Passive Mode sensors and most basic scanning devices only evaluate an area directly around a vessel . More powerful Scan-mode sensors can actively gather information in a much wider range; and search-mode sensors are programmed to actively search for information in specific directions. Finally, focus mode sensors can closely study a small area of space or an environment to collect a massive amount of data.

Passive mode sensors only scan the immediate area around a ship. That is how the rules also have the sensors work. The Passive sensors operate only out to the range listed, which for TIE Fighters, are Close range, a few kilometers at most . The rules don't use Scan mode sensors or Focus Mode sensors. They do use Search Mode (called Active mode), which boosts the range out one range band in a single direction. The other two modes are not intended for combat, and, therefore, are only really narrative devices .

Quote

Regarding a difference in speeds and who wins a chase scene... it is the GM's prerogative when and when not to allow a chase scene and that you could over come speed difference of 2 was beyond the bounds of credibility for me, a speed difference of 1 I would of rolled with and upgraded the difficulty of one side of the competitive check. So rather than rule out a chase scene entirely, I let you engage in a chase scene in those rounds you had supreme full throttle active, and effectively not participate in a chase scene in those rounds in which you didn't. That seems like a fair and reasonable compromise to me.

I have no idea where you could have gotten 3 rounds of actions, maybe the 2 rounds you had to be travelling at speed 3 so your droid could remove the tracker from your hull, but your 7 advantage bought you the 2 rounds of traveling at speed 3 without the fighters taking pot shots at you, so you weren't robbed and it wasn't wasted.

I've said multiple times now that going orbital would NOT have put you in direct confrontation with a star destroyer, so grow up and stop being delusional/asserting blatant falsehoods/mischaracterizing the situation,

I'm not trying to be hurtful, I'm trying to get you an opportunity to play Korath in as close to the way you want as possible, but I don't believe that there is anyone on the planet who would be willing to game with you playing Korath as you fully want to. So I've been trying to moderate you as Korath into an experience other gamers would be willing to tolerate, and what I've gotten from you in return is accusations of bias and sabotage. Remember that this thing fell apart at least 3 times without my involvement.

No, a chase happens if the situation warrants it. IF one party has no desire to engage in a fire fight, and decides to disengage and take off running (or flying, in this case) away from his opponent then the other party either must chase him or let him go. If it is the latter , the Chase rules are absolutely necessary. IF the other party decides to not pursue, then no, don't engage the chase rules. You can't have a "regular" combat if one of the participants runs away. That inherently makes it a chase . So no, it is not the GM's prerogative, it requires both parties.

And yes, I would have lost three full rounds of actions with your dropping me down to Speed 3 and having S3 "automatically succeed". And yes, it removes player agency as a result. Those three rounds are: the second round of Speed 5 in which to try and pull ahead, plus the next round to attempt to maintain the higher speed and keep rolling against the TIEs, and the round following that. Your plan would have had me travelling at Speed 3 for two full rounds, since I still had one raound left at Speed five, I would have lost that round of actions as well as the next two. That is three full rounds of actions and maneuvers I would not have had. So yes, that is robbing me of player agency simply for your expedience.

And, yes, going directly into orbit would have put me in direct confrontation with that Star Destroyer. That is because of the long range of its sensors and weapons. A Star Destroyers sensors and Heavy Turbolaser batteries extend out to Long Range , which in space is indeed thousands of kilometers. Those batteries were designed with Orbital Bombardment in mind. As such, as long as the Jedi Star was even within line of sight , I was in direct confrontation with that Star Destroyer. I absolutely needed to stay in atmosphere until I got at least over the horizon from that Star Destroyer. Going directly into orbit would have put me within long range of that ship, and thus within weapons range. As such , I would likely have been dead or captured in short order, particularly since, while my ship has the firepower, it lacks gunners. Combat was not an option.

Quote

As for robbing you of player agency, that's another falsehood/delusion, it's the GM's job description to set the difficulty of proposed actions, setting the difficulty of a ridiculously infeasible course of action pretty high is just part of GMing, maybe you could argue that me not even letting you attempt a ridiculously infeasible course of action would have been robbing you of player action but A) that's a dubious argument and B) I didn't say no, I just the difficulty high in a way that respected RAW.

First off, my plan of action was not "infeasibly hard". In fact, it is a well used military tactic in reality; a tactic I specifically linked to very early on in this debate. It is also one well established by canon. It is not "impossibly hard". You wanted it to be impossibly hard in order to force me to go into orbit . In reality Sea-Skimming , and Nap of the Earth flying is a very smart, and simple tactic commonly used by military pilots all the time to avoid RADAR. So, don't give me the "it's impossibly hard" argument. You were never in the military , Elias. I was. I think I know more about military tactics than you.

Also, by RAW, the base difficulty would have been no harder or easier whether I was in space or in atmosphere since the base difficulty of any piloting check is based purely on the size of the vessel and its speed . This is true regardless of whether it is in space or atmosphere (F&D page 246). Any other factor, such as terrain and weather conditions, is handled through Setback dice and Boots dice, and those are the only things that may have made things more difficult for me, and even then they would have been just as difficult for the TIE fighters. So, no, flying low over the ocean would not have been "impossibly" hard. At worst, given a speed of 5 and silhouette of 5, it would have been two Difficulty, three Challenge, and two Setbacks for weather. If I dropped down to Speed 3, it should have been three Challenge and two Setbacks. That is it, not an impossible check. The TIE fighters, as well should have been rolling Three Difficulty, Two Challenge (Speed 5, silhouette 3), and Two Setbacks. The only thing that makes flying low to the ocean more difficult than heading into orbit is the weather and waves, and those only add two Setback dice by RAW .

Quote

If you're going to claim I was biased against Korath I'd have to actually be wrong about how you'd behave when you played him. As turns out I was almost presciently accurate. I know you better than anyone else on these boards and of the two of us I'm the only one with a largely unbiased view of your behavior, particularly when you play Korath.

In case you didn't know, I was following you in the Revan's war play by post, and you actually seem fairly willing to compromise, go with the flow adhere to GM rulings when you're playing the wookiee. But when you're playing Korath, you get a lot more authoritarian, demanding things have to happen how you think they should and you bullied killer beard hawk into running the chase scene according to how you (incorrectly) interpreted RAW. And that was after I butted out. You've also been pretty authoritarian in you efforts to coerce somebody into playing Korath's apprentice. So yeah I'm batting 1000 when it comes to predicting how you behave towards the other gamers involved when Korath is involved. The point is YOU ARE WAY TO CLOSE TO KORATH TO BE UNBIASED ABOUT HIM/YOURSELF WHEN YOU PLAY HIM.

Also, I know you don't see it this way but it's been my intent for years to help you get to finish out Korath's story, because left to your own devices I was pretty darn sure that wasn't going to happen. We had multiple debates where I turned you on to the merits of this system, I've been buying you FaD books for birthday and Christmas, I helped you build Korath the way you wanted him even though I was firmly convinced it was a pretty sucky build, and my interference in this campaign, yes I was running interference, trying to ensure that everyone involved got to play a character they could enjoy, because that would give you the best chance of playing Korath at all. And when this fell apart the first 3 times, that was all you, and I volunteered to take over so you would get to play Korath when A) I really didn't have the time and B) had no desire to deal with the argumentitive hassle you are when you play Korath, but I did it anyway because I want you to be able to play Korath and finish up his story, then the game fell apart a 5th time because you bullied killer bears hawk into ruling how you wanted and it turned out you were wrong about how you were interpreting RAW, and I offered to GM again, do you even know how much I've dreaded your next response/argument in this thread? I really don't want to GM for you, but I keep offering because I want you to be able to play Korath. I am firmly against you abusing other players and GMs, which is why I've ACCURATELY warned them about what they're getting themselves into, but I've been willing to deal with you as Korath myself because I want you to be able to play Korath and I have more tolerance for your argumentativeness than anyone else on these boards, maybe more than anyone else in the world with the possible exception of members of your family.

That is not bias against Korath, and I've gotten past the knee jerk emotional response trauma that was that D20 campaign (which started in session zero, not late in the game BTW).

Except there is one thing you are forgetting. Even after Korath eventually faces off against his nemesis, I have no intention of retiring this character. Might he go on to be an NPC mentor once I have enough experience with this system to actually try being a full-time GM? Maybe , but I will never stop playing him.

Do I have an attachment to this character? Absolutely. I never denied that. I've played this character a very long time. Anyone who has played a character for long enough (whether it be an actor playing a role, or a player playing a PC), will become attached to that character. That is a given.

Secondly, I didn't "bully" Killerbeardhawk into anything, not about the chase, not about my interpretation of the Full Throttle talents. I gave my reasons for how I interpreted it, the question was put to Sam Stewart, (though it took way too long before we got any response) and we moved on.

And I haven't tried to "bully" anyone into being Korath's apprentice. I am trying to get a game going where people can not only play their favorite long-time characters, but also play new ones from the beginning, and have those long-played characters be mentors to the younger ones. And that includes myself. It is also intended to give people a chance to take turns as GM, and gain experience from that. I don't just want to continue to play Korath. I also want to start playing this new Mandalorian character, as well as get valuable practical experience with the system.

And also, it is not your place to "warn" anyone about anything , whether you feel it is warranted or not. All you're doing is ruining what could be an enjoyable game for everyone involved and creating hard feelings between us.

And no, the first three times we lost a GM, was not me. I've already proven that. My problem with Mychal'el was that he was actually re-writing things that were already established and ignoring what I said I was doing in order to put me into a predetermined scenario. The first happened when he ignored where Awayputurwpn had already established the turbolift the party was on was headed , and instead of having us arrive at the exit leading to the Jedi Star , like Awayputurwpn had said, he had us end up in the First Order's fighter hangar completely in the wrong direction. Then he ignored my specific statements regarding my actions and what I planned on doing and jumped ahead, once again robbing me of actions I should have had in order to force a predetermined confrontation with the Star Destroyer. He was railroading. And when you "tried" to take over, you followed suit.

I strongly disagree with most of what you wrote, particularly your chatacterization of situations, but I'm not going to argue any further. Peace out.

Just got this response from Sam Stewart, I thought I'd share.

I have a question about chase scenes, do the Rules as Written give the player the right to demand a chase scene whenever they want to exit a space combat, or if in the GM's judgment that flying away at sublight speeds is beyond the bounds of credibility (e.g. their ship is MUCH slower than the tie fighters chasing it, e.g. speed 3 vs. speed 5) can the GM require them to jump to hyperspace to lose their pursuers. In the scenario in question, there is no relevant terrain (e.g. no asteroid fields, orbital debris fields) that would force the tie fighters to slow down or risk crashing. Thank you for your time.

Hello Keith,

Whatever the rules as written are, they don’t give the players the “right” to demand scenarios of the game. Ideally, the GM shouldn’t be forcing anything on the players, either. The GM should be working to craft an interesting and challenging scenario that will be fun for the players to engage with, and the players should trust the GM to do that and be willing to engage with the scenario the GM has created. If there has been a breakdown in that process, it may be best to stop the game for five to ten minutes and let the players hope to explain what they expect to get out of a chase scene, and have the GM explain why they don’t want to engage in a chase scene, and why their plan for the scenario works better.

Hope this helps!

Sam Stewart

RPG Manager

Fantasy Flight Games