It's been alright so far. There has been a few debates about rules (mostly setting stuff such as character ages, experience relative to xp etc) but it has been kept to a minimum for the most part.

@Rabobankrider when would you be ready to join?

6 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?).

5 hours ago, killerbeardhawk said:

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.

Starting characters as per RAW, We should probably stick to F&D careers for those to make sure there are enough students, though any specs beyond the in career specs are open, including those from DoR (Retired Clone Trooper excepted since they'd all be dead from old age by now ). Master level "Signature" characters 1500-2000 XP, any career and spec from any line .

Previously played characters preferred but not required. This includes characters converted from previous systems (D6/D20, etc). If making a brand new Master level character, it would probably be better to start with the lower XP amount.

19 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

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.

Nope. The Chase rules as a whole are not "optional rules". The structure and mechanics of how to run them is not optional, and when to run them is not optional, it is situational . The specific conditions for the resolution of the chase are variable , and, therefore, conditional . That's not the same thing as " optional ". Every "optional" rule in the books are specifically marked as "Optional Rule" . The Chase rules are not marked as such. Ergo, they are not "optional rules".

As for how far the TIEs were from the Jedi Star , at the start of the chase, it was Medium range, the range of the Jedi Star 's sensors. That's when I went Full Throttle and "lost" them for a while.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Nope. The Chase rules as a whole are not "optional rules". The structure and mechanics of how to run them is not optional, and when to run them is not optional, it is situational . The specific conditions for the resolution of the chase are variable , and, therefore, conditional . That's not the same thing as " optional ". Every "optional" rule in the books are specifically marked as "Optional Rule" . The Chase rules are not marked as such. Ergo, they are not "optional rules".

As for how far the TIEs were from the Jedi Star , at the start of the chase, it was Medium range, the range of the Jedi Star 's sensors. That's when I went Full Throttle and "lost" them for a while.

It flat out say the rules for running a chase CAN BE, i.e. the are NOT REQUIRED TO BE, a modification of the normal combat rules. Having rules to resolve a chase scene is not optional but whether to use the standard combat rules or the explicitly optional modification of them is entirely the GM's prerogative.

You cajoling killer bears hawk into ruling the way you wanted us not something you should be proud of, and it doesn't actually answer the question about what you were demanding when I was the GM. You trying to dodge questions or change the narrative doesn't work against me.

2 hours ago, Rabobankrider said:

It's been alright so far. There has been a few debates about rules (mostly setting stuff such as character ages, experience relative to xp etc) but it has been kept to a minimum for the most part.

The difference in Tramp's behavior (degree of argumentativeness) is entirely explained by whether or not he's playing Korath Lorren. Korath is Tramp's idealized version of himself. He sees things not going the way he thinks they should for Korath and being a direct challenge to himself.

4 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

It flat out say the rules for running a chase CAN BE, i.e. the are NOT REQUIRED TO BE, a modification of the normal combat rules. Having rules to resolve a chase scene is not optional but whether to use the standard combat rules or the explicitly optional modification of them is entirely the GM's prerogative.

You cajoling killer bears hawk into ruling the way you wanted us not something you should be proud of, and it doesn't actually answer the question about what you were demanding when I was the GM. You trying to dodge questions or change the narrative doesn't work against me.

What I was demanding was that you follow the RAW and stop trying to force me to do something which was guaranteed to put my character in imminent jeopardy. As for "changing the narrative". I wasn't. It was you and Mychal'el that tried to change the narrative. and rewrite what had already been established. He did so, probably not realizing it, by ignoring what I said I was doing and jumping ahead to a predetermined outcome, and you did so by trying to change the rules to try to make my intended actions impossible.

The narrative you're now changing is that you were demanding that you escape from the ties when you got to medium range from them because you were claiming they couldn't detect you at that distance, whereas the optional (modified from normal combat) chase rules explicitly says that the chase ends when, in general, the chasee gets to extreme range and b) the chase end conditions were up to the gm. Regardless of whether you agree with the RAWness of my *justification* for the terminating conditions of the chase scene my actual final ruling for the terminating condition, i.e. that you had to get beyond extreme range, was completely RAW because it was A) the default terminating condition and B) it's explicitly up to the GM.

So A) you demanding that you lose them at medium range was against the default RAW under the optional (modified from normal combat), and B) it was against RAW that you were even demanding any terminating condition for a chase scene.

You were the person violating RAW, even if my justification for following RAW was supported by CANNON instead of sensor RAW which was at least apparently contradictory to sensor cannon.

And that's not the only revisionist history you're trying to use to change the current narrative of this discussion, and the historical record in this thread clearly shows what I'm about to say is true... no I did not even try to edit the past history when I was GM. Timewise I picked up exactly where Mychal'el left off (you rolled one mechanics check to remove the tracker under him and failed before i took over and then on my watch you said you were going to try again at which point I said if you were just going to keep rolling until you succeeded, then there was no point in rolling at all unless you were trying to farm advantage and triumph and I wasn't going to allow that. I did not require you to even make a roll to remove the tracker you just had to drop to speed 3 for 2 rounds) and that was past where the GM before him left off. So there was absolutely no revisionist history on my watch. Because you had argued against that for 6+ weeks I offered to allow you to revise history and make an impossible difficulty roll to remove the tracker at speed 5. Note that I did not change the difficulty of the roll you failed under Mychal'el, I set the difficulty of the NEXT roll on my watch to one that I though was more appropriate to the task at hand. It was a difference in GMing judgment moving forward not revisionist history.

So once again you are 100% wrong on all counts in your latest post.

14 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?).

10 hours 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).

Hey, let me know if you guys are interested in a PbP "Heroes of the Empire" game where the PCs are the Empire's patriots versus the terrorist Rebels.

No rule arguments allowed. Just collaborative storytelling

7 hours ago, Mychal'el said:

Hey, let me know if you guys are interested in a PbP "Heroes of the Empire" game where the PCs are the Empire's patriots versus the terrorist Rebels.

No rule arguments allowed. Just collaborative storytelling

Sounds fun, but I have a problem playing "bad guys." I hope it gets going, though. Sounds like it might be fun to lurk along.

34 minutes ago, SavageBob said:

Sounds fun, but I have a problem playing "bad guys." I hope it gets going, though. Sounds like it might be fun to lurk along.

In this campaign I'm proposing, the Imperials would be played straight as the good guys of Star Wars. Any bad things the Empire does would be thoroughly justified as acts of war, fake news, peace keeping, or blunders of disgraced officers. Alderaan would be the equivalent to Heroshima & Nagasaki for example. The Rebels would be portrayed as terrorist actors equivalent to Taliban or Isis.

Anyway, sorry to take up anymore space on this thread for this.

@killerbeardhawk I should be ready at the end of April assuming work settles down, but I'll hopefully have some character stuff ready for approval before then.

Fair warning though, if this does devolve into a massive debate about rules that stops the game for ages I won't be hanging around.

@Mychal'el , that sounds pretty awesome and if the workload at the end of April isn't too bad I'd be happy to join in as a player.

4 hours ago, Rabobankrider said:

Fair warning though, if this does devolve into a massive debate about rules that stops the game for ages I won't be hanging around.

@Tramp Graphics can you just go along with the game even if you think the GM is wrong? At least continue to post IC while correcting the mistakes of those in charge?

Would it be easier for you start as the GM so that you dont have these issues with a GM who doesnt agree with you on your rulings?

Edit: ignore underlined part. I feel tramp is NOT qualified to be a GM.

Meanwhile...

Hello,

The Full Throttle talent increases the top speed of your vehicle. However, it does not accelerate your vehicle to that speed, so you will need to use maneuvers to take advantage of your new top speed.

Hope this helps!

Sam Stewart

RPG Manager

Fantasy Flight Games

13 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

Meanwhile...

"Convenient" Tramp couldnt be convinced otherwise as we were wrong clearly.

@Tramp Graphics you either know the rules well enough to GM or you NEED to listen to the GM! You can not say you know all the rules but be consistantly proved wrong. Didnt you send an email in? Didnt get the response you wanted or is Sam not reading RAW?

@Tramp Graphics i think we are going to need to go back and continue the chase at speed 3. Also im strictly not going to let you just spam boost dice with every advantage. Its seriously gaming the die system and in my opinion unimaginative and basically cheating. I as GM will be in control final say of ALL advantage, threat, Triumph and Despair. As you werent even taking penalties for threats, youve lost the privilege of handling your own die results.

Should we just leave it as you voilating the rules set forth by RAW and the GM? Kind of makes it seem like you got away with cheating if we dont.

You do your game, KBH, but I'd just let this adventure end! Start fresh with a new understanding in a new session: No rules arguments. GM's word is final.

3 hours ago, killerbeardhawk said:

"Convenient" Tramp couldnt be convinced otherwise as we were wrong clearly.

@Tramp Graphics you either know the rules well enough to GM or you NEED to listen to the GM! You can not say you know all the rules but be consistantly proved wrong. Didnt you send an email in? Didnt get the response you wanted or is Sam not reading RAW?

Yes, I did send an email in, actually two because of the delay in getting a response from the first one, resulting from the Captcha mess. I also finally got a response regarding sensors.

41 minutes ago, SavageBob said:

You do your game, KBH, but I'd just let this adventure end! Start fresh with a new understanding in a new session: No rules arguments. GM's word is final.

I dont think tramp is capable of that. We will just end.

13 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, I did send an email in, actually two because of the delay in getting a response from the first one, resulting from the Captcha mess. I also finally got a response regarding sensors.

So you got a response you didnt want to announce to the rest of us because it would not benefit you? This is the last straw. I fully believe you were/are cheating at a SOLO adventure. Which is just laughable. You were/are trying to weasel out of setback dice, conflict, and how your talents work. What a waste of time.

13 minutes ago, killerbeardhawk said:

So you got a response you didnt want to announce to the rest of us because it would not benefit you? This is the last straw. I fully believe you were/are cheating at a SOLO adventure. Which is just laughable. You were/are trying to weasel out of setback dice, conflict, and how your talents work. What a waste of time.

To be fair, my response just came today, so I’d imagine Tramp’s did, too. I won’t fault someone for not posting while “on the clock” like I do, since I’m not supposed to, either.

Has posted the Emails here

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/108101-ffg-developer-answered-questions/?page=14

4 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

To be fair, my response just came today, so I’d imagine Tramp’s did, too. I won’t fault someone for not posting while “on the clock” like I do, since I’m not supposed to, either.

Nailed it. I did just get the responses today, and did post them immediately.

6 hours ago, killerbeardhawk said:

@Tramp Graphics can you just go along with the game even if you think the GM is wrong? At least continue to post IC while correcting the mistakes of those in charge?

Would it be easier for you start as the GM so that you dont have these issues with a GM who doesnt agree with you on your rulings?

Edit: ignore underlined part. I feel tramp is NOT qualified to be a GM.

That’s exactly why I don’t want to GM. Not yet anyway. I don’t yet have a full grasp of the system from a practical perspective, only from reading the rules. I still need more practical experience with this system before even attempting to GM. Even then, there are only a couple of specific encounters I plan on GMing, and those I want to split GM duties with.

17 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

That’s exactly why I don’t want to GM. Not yet anyway. I don’t yet have a full grasp of the system from a practical perspective, only from reading the rules. I still need more practical experience with this system before even attempting to GM. Even then, there are only a couple of specific encounters I plan on GMing, and those I want to split GM duties with.

Good luck with that after this thread.

Too bad Away, Elis, and myself TRIED to teach you and you sqandered those opportunities.

20 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

The narrative you're now changing is that you were demanding that you escape from the ties when you got to medium range from them because you were claiming they couldn't detect you at that distance, whereas the optional (modified from normal combat) chase rules explicitly says that the chase ends when, in general, the chasee gets to extreme range and b) the chase end conditions were up to the gm. Regardless of whether you agree with the RAWness of my *justification* for the terminating conditions of the chase scene my actual final ruling for the terminating condition, i.e. that you had to get beyond extreme range, was completely RAW because it was A) the default terminating condition and B) it's explicitly up to the GM.

So A) you demanding that you lose them at medium range was against the default RAW under the optional (modified from normal combat), and B) it was against RAW that you were even demanding any terminating condition for a chase scene.

You were the person violating RAW, even if my justification for following RAW was supported by CANNON instead of sensor RAW which was at least apparently contradictory to sensor cannon.

And that's not the only revisionist history you're trying to use to change the current narrative of this discussion, and the historical record in this thread clearly shows what I'm about to say is true... no I did not even try to edit the past history when I was GM. Timewise I picked up exactly where Mychal'el left off (you rolled one mechanics check to remove the tracker under him and failed before i took over and then on my watch you said you were going to try again at which point I said if you were just going to keep rolling until you succeeded, then there was no point in rolling at all unless you were trying to farm advantage and triumph and I wasn't going to allow that. I did not require you to even make a roll to remove the tracker you just had to drop to speed 3 for 2 rounds) and that was past where the GM before him left off. So there was absolutely no revisionist history on my watch. Because you had argued against that for 6+ weeks I offered to allow you to revise history and make an impossible difficulty roll to remove the tracker at speed 5. Note that I did not change the difficulty of the roll you failed under Mychal'el, I set the difficulty of the NEXT roll on my watch to one that I though was more appropriate to the task at hand. It was a difference in GMing judgment moving forward not revisionist history.

So once again you are 100% wrong on all counts in your latest post.

Remember, there is just as much of a chance of getting Threat and Despair as there is getting Advantages and Triumphs. Also, in regards to your continued assertion that the Chase rules are “optional”, the very fact that there are talents specifically designed for use with the chase rules , and only with the chase rules , is proof enough that the chase rules are not “optional”. The game designer would not put talents in a spec tree that a character has to spend valuable XPs on that only work with an “optional” rule. in fact, the only truly optional rules I know of in the entire system are the ones revolving around triggering Duty, Morality, and Obligation. The only other thing that is “optional” is when mixing the three systems together and choosing how to implement the DMO mechanics for the group, given that there are several options to choose from, whether choosing only one, or combining them in various ways.