25 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

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.

If I recall correctly there are talents or signature abilities (I forget which) that specifically interact with duty, although I do not remember which talents they are. So presuming my memory is correct... so much for that theory of yours.

Edit: I'm away from that book right now (taking care of my son outside our home so my wife who is a night nurse can sleep) but I'm guessing that positive spin or the improved version might be the talent I'm half remembering

3 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

If I recall correctly there are talents or signature abilities (I forget which) that specifically interact with duty, although I do not remember which talents they are. So presuming my memory is correct... so much for that theory of yours.

Propagandist - Positive Spin and Improved Positive Spin interact with Duty.

31 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

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.

Also since you didn't argue against, it I'll take it that you plead "no contest" to my assertion that YOU violated RAW when you demanded that the chase scene ended at medium range and that you concede that my ruling that you had to get beyond EXTREME range, adhered to RAW even if though you don't think my *justification* for it did.

11 minutes ago, SithArissa said:

Propagandist - Positive Spin and Improved Positive Spin interact with Duty.

Thanks for the confirmation @SithArissa

56 minutes ago, SithArissa said:

Propagandist - Positive Spin and Improved Positive Spin interact with Duty.

The positive spin talents don’t involve triggering Duty. They deal only with increasing it, which isn’t an optional rule whereas Triggering Duty is.

43 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

Also since you didn't argue against, it I'll take it that you plead "no contest" to my assertion that YOU violated RAW when you demanded that the chase scene ended at medium range and that you concede that my ruling that you had to get beyond EXTREME range, adhered to RAW even if though you don't think my *justification* for it did.

Nope. First off, given that I still had that tracker on my hull, it wouldn’t have mattered how far I had gotten, so that argument is moot. However, while the Chase rules do state that the standard result would be getting beyond extreme range to properly escape, getting beyond the enemy’s sensor range would certainly make it more difficult for them to chase their target. The chase rules don’t take that into account, which is fine.

12 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The positive spin talents don’t involve triggering Duty. They deal only with increasing it, which isn’t an optional rule whereas Triggering Duty is.

And if a campaign (usually mixed-line, such as you described) isn't using duty, that's effectively different because...?

"Yeah, I'm sinking XP into a Talent that won't do me any good because we're not using Duty, but that's TOTALLY different than sinking XP into a Talent that involves chase rules which may or may not ever come into play."

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The positive spin talents don’t involve triggering Duty. They deal only with increasing it, which isn’t an optional rule whereas Triggering Duty is.

That's a new level of absurdity even for you. The absurdity is that you are arguing this as if it is relevant or supports you previously invalidated statements in anyway whatsoever.

This new quoted statement does nothing to support your 100% wrong previous statement that FFG wouldn't have a non optional talent that cost xp that is useless if the GM chooses not to use an optional mechanic.

Your "jedi mind tricks"/attempts a misdirection or to change the narrative "don't work on me boy"

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Nope. First off, given that I still had that tracker on my hull, it wouldn’t have mattered how far I had gotten, so that argument is moot. However, while the Chase rules do state that the standard result would be getting beyond extreme range tous properly escape, getting beyond the enemy’s sensor range would certainly make it more difficult for them to chase their target. The chase rules don’t take that into account, which is fine.

You did not still have the tracker on your hull, i had previously ruled that you traveled at speed for 2 rounds to remove it because I don't let players keep rerolling as long as it takes to succeed. So the argument is not moot. You refused to continue to play with me as GM because as GM I wouldn't yield your now indisputably wrong/against RAW interpretation of RAW with respect to the chase scene termination conditions and 100% wrong interpretation of the RAW regarding the full throttle talent. That's not moot.

You've also alienated killer beard hawk and the campaign is dead, as are your chances of finding another GM to let you play korath because no sane person would would agree to it after your behavior in this thread. That said, I'm not completely sane, having been driven mad by your unceasing argument long ago, and having (mostly) come out the other side of that madness I've built up something of a tolerance/immunity to your argumentative behavior. I'm also your friend in real live for close to 15 years, and I want you to be able to finish Korath's story. So, I'm still willing to GM picking up where I left of with all my previous rulings in place, i.e. the 16 conflict from trying to bend the universe to your force of will. The conflict you got from him would be wiped.

If you want me to GM, you have to explicitly accept my terms this time. Including my decision to go with cannon over RAW when RAW conflicts with cannon by my interpretation/judgement.

You also agree to accept that what I as GM tell you as player is the outcome of events is true. For example when I tell you that simply running for space is not going to result for a head to head battle with a star destroyer and a squadron of ties, you will not keep insisting that it will.

If you will agree to that then I will resume GMing for you.

1 hour ago, EliasWindrider said:

That's a new level of absurdity even for you. The absurdity is that you are arguing this as if it is relevant or supports you previously invalidated statements in anyway whatsoever.

This new quoted statement does nothing to support your 100% wrong previous statement that FFG wouldn't have a non optional talent that cost xp that is useless if the GM chooses not to use an optional mechanic.

Your "jedi mind tricks"/attempts a misdirection or to change the narrative "don't work on me boy"

No it isn’t. The issue is about whether there are talents which are dependent on optional rules, not Duty Morality or Obligation in general. There are no talents in any talent tree which rely on an optional rule being in play. Increasing Duty is not an optional rule. Triggering Duty is optional, triggering Morality is optional, triggering Obligation is optional. Increasing any of those is not optional.

1 hour ago, Nytwyng said:

And if a campaign (usually mixed-line, such as you described) isn't using duty, that's effectively different because...?

"Yeah, I'm sinking XP into a Talent that won't do me any good because we're not using Duty, but that's TOTALLY different than sinking XP into a Talent that involves chase rules which may or may not ever come into play."

If a group is using careers and specs from all three systems, more than likely they’re using all three of the mechanics I one combination or another. The only time where only one is advised for use is if the game focuses mostly on one core aspect (rebellion, underworld, or The Force), and only touchy upon the others. The other options given are for more balanced games either by having each character choose one mechanics based upon their character’s career, or have choosing a group mechanic and having Force users also have a Morality. Given that any character from all three systems can make use of any and all of these mechanics, these talents are always fully useable.

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

If a group is using careers and specs from all three systems, more than likely they’re using all three of the mechanics I one combination or another. The only time where only one is advised for use is if the game focuses mostly on one core aspect (rebellion, underworld, or The Force), and only touchy upon the others. The other options given are for more balanced games either by having each character choose one mechanics based upon their character’s career, or have choosing a group mechanic and having Force users also have a Morality. Given that any character from all three systems can make use of any and all of these mechanics, these talents are always fully useable.

Awesome!

Please elaborate. I'd dearly love to know how my Smuggler with Obligation who's taken on Propagandist as a secondary spec and has no ties to any military or paramilitary organization will make use of Duty.

A Propagandist is no more guaranteed to be able to utilize Positive Spin than another character is guaranteed to be able to use talents that impact chase rules.

I would question why such a character would have that spec if he wasn’t attached to some organization of some form, regardless of whether it were military/paramilitary or not. That’s what propagandists do. They promote the agenda of their organizations. Thus, they should inherently have a “duty” to said organization with all of the perks thereof. So, if your smugggler took that spec, I would ask what organization you were joining and give you Duty for that organization.

27 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

You did not still have the tracker on your hull, i had previously ruled that you traveled at speed for 2 rounds to remove it because I don't let players keep rerolling as long as it takes to succeed. So the argument is not moot. You refused to continue to play with me as GM because as GM I wouldn't yield your now indisputably wrong/against RAW interpretation of RAW with respect to the chase scene termination conditions and 100% wrong interpretation of the RAW regarding the full throttle talent. That's not moot.

You've also alienated killer beard hawk and the campaign is dead, as are your chances of finding another GM to let you play korath because no sane person would would agree to it after your behavior in this thread. That said, I'm not completely sane, having been driven mad by your unceasing argument long ago, and having (mostly) come out the other side of that madness I've built up something of a tolerance/immunity to your argumentative behavior. I'm also your friend in real live for close to 15 years, and I want you to be able to finish Korath's story. So, I'm still willing to GM picking up where I left of with all my previous rulings in place, i.e. the 16 conflict from trying to bend the universe to your force of will. The conflict you got from him would be wiped.

If you want me to GM, you have to explicitly accept my terms this time. Including my decision to go with cannon over RAW when RAW conflicts with cannon by my interpretation/judgement.

You also agree to accept that what I as GM tell you as player is the outcome of events is true. For example when I tell you that simply running for space is not going to result for a head to head battle with a star destroyer and a squadron of ties, you will not keep insisting that it will.

If you will agree to that then I will resume GMing for you.

To make the 16 conflict less of a bitter pill to swallow, this time only I will spot you a 10 on the morality check.

23 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No it isn’t. The issue is about whether there are talents which are dependent on optional rules, not Duty Morality or Obligation in general. There are no talents in any talent tree which rely on an optional rule being in play. Increasing Duty is not an optional rule. Triggering Duty is optional, triggering Morality is optional, triggering Obligation is optional. Increasing any of those is not optional.

Bold font assertions that an absurd statement is not absurd does not make it any less absurd.

12 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

Bold font assertions that an absurd statement is not absurd does not make it any less absurd.

It’s not an absurd statement. Is increasing Duty, Obligation, or Morality an optional rule in their given system? No, it is not. Triggering them is. So, whether or not there are talents attached specifically to any of the three mechanics is irrelevant. It’s a straw man argument. The issue is whether there are talents that only work with a specifically optional rule, and there are none. All of the talents in all of the systems are built upon core rules of that system. Propagandist, and its Positive Spin talents are built upon the AoR core mechanic of increasing Duty. That is not an optional rule for AoR, whereas triggering that Duty is an optional rule for AoR. There are no talents which are built upon triggering Duty or any other optional rule.

39 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I would question why such a character would have that spec if he wasn’t attached to some organization of some form, regardless of whether it were military/paramilitary or not. That’s what propagandists do. They promote the agenda of their organizations. Thus, they should inherently have a “duty” to said organization with all of the perks thereof. So, if your smugggler took that spec, I would ask what organization you were joining and give you Duty for that organization.

Setting aside, for the moment, that I just picked Smuggler out of the proverbial hat for this example, I'm sitting here looking at the Propagandist tree. The only talent inherently tied to an organization is Bad Press, which targets an opposing organization with a Deception check that imposes penalties upon that organization with success. But, one might find, say, In the Know (three ranks) and In the Know - Improved to be useful in their campaign.

16 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

It’s not an absurd statement. Is increasing Duty, Obligation, or Morality an optional rule in their given system? No, it is not. Triggering them is. So, whether or not there are talents attached specifically to any of the three mechanics is irrelevant. It’s a straw man argument. The issue is whether there are talents that only work with a specifically optional rule, and there are none. All of the talents in all of the systems are built upon core rules of that system. Propagandist, and its Positive Spin talents are built upon the AoR core mechanic of increasing Duty. That is not an optional rule for AoR, whereas triggering that Duty is an optional rule for AoR. There are no talents which are built upon triggering Duty or any other optional rule.

But, if a campaign isn't using Duty (i.e. Duty isn't "triggered"), how would the Positive Spins be useful?

4 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

Setting aside, for the moment, that I just picked Smuggler out of the proverbial hat for this example, I'm sitting here looking at the Propagandist tree. The only talent inherently tied to an organization is Bad Press, which targets an opposing organization with a Deception check that imposes penalties upon that organization with success. But, one might find, say, In the Know (three ranks) and In the Know - Improved to be useful in their campaign.

But, if a campaign isn't using Duty (i.e. Duty isn't "triggered"), how would the Positive Spins be useful?

If the campaign is an AoR campaign it requires the use of the Duty mechanics, but not the Triggering of it. Ergo, the Positive Spin talent is not dependent upon an optional rule of AoR. It is dependent upon a core mechanic of that system. That is the key here.

33 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

If the campaign is an AoR campaign it requires the use of the Duty mechanics, but not the Triggering of it. Ergo, the Positive Spin talent is not dependent upon an optional rule of AoR. It is dependent upon a core mechanic of that system. That is the key here.

You're moving the goalposts here, Tramp. First you (and I) talk of a mixed campaign, now you're talking about an AoR-only campaign.

The three lines are compatible for a reason. Propagandist is not limited to AoR-only campaigns, nor is a character with the spec required to take on Duty. Thus, the Positive Spin talents may be useless to the player/character who takes Propagandist.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I would question why such a character would have that spec if he wasn’t attached to some organization of some form, regardless of whether it were military/paramilitary or not. That’s what propagandists do. They promote the agenda of their organizations. Thus, they should inherently have a “duty” to said organization with all of the perks thereof. So, if your smugggler took that spec, I would ask what organization you were joining and give you Duty for that organization.

You do realize that in the real world wealthy individuals and corporations with image problems can hire PR firms to help change public opinion about themselves right? There's also advertising agencies and lobbyists. I imagine that most "propagandists" don't buy into there own hype and are simply doing a job for a paycheck rather than out of a sense of "duty" or loyalty to whoever they're promoting.

A hutt having a propagandist as a fixer in an EotE game makes a lot of sense to me.

6 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

You're moving the goalposts here, Tramp. First you (and I) talk of a mixed campaign, now you're talking about an AoR-only campaign.

The three lines are compatible for a reason. Propagandist is not limited to AoR-only campaigns, nor is a character with the spec required to take on Duty. Thus, the Positive Spin talents may be useless to the player/character who takes Propagandist.

No, it isn’t. Any game using all three systems would, or at least should be using all three mechanics in one combinatio or another. The point is that the Duty mechanic itself is not an optional rule, it’s a core mechanic, and the two Positive Spin talents are tied to that core mechanic. That is my point. No talent in any of the three lines is dependent upon an optional rule. They’re all dependent upon core mechanics of the game.

2 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

You do realize that in the real world wealthy individuals and corporations with image problems can hire PR firms to help change public opinion about themselves right? There's also advertising agencies and lobbyists. I imagine that most "propagandists" don't buy into there own hype and are simply doing a job for a paycheck rather than out of a sense of "duty" or loyalty to whoever they're promoting.

Yes they do. I’m a graphic designer. Graphic Designers work with advertising and the like. And yes, we do have a duty to our clients.

3 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes they do. I’m a graphic designer. Graphic Designers work with advertising and the like. And yes, we do have a duty to our clients.

Not one that extends beyond a paycheck, you're basically a mercenary, the "duty" (if you can call it that) is to the job not the client.

6 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, it isn’t. Any game using all three systems would, or at least should be using all three mechanics in one combinatio or another. The point is that the Duty mechanic itself is not an optional rule, it’s a core mechanic, and the two Positive Spin talents are tied to that core mechanic. That is my point. No talent in any of the three lines is dependent upon an optional rule. They’re all dependent upon core mechanics of the game.

A propagandist working as a fixer for a hutt in an EotE game should be using obligation not duty.

Just now, EliasWindrider said:

Not one that extends beyond a paycheck, you're basically a mercenary, the "duty" (if you can call it that) is to the job not the client.

Yes, it is. But it is still a duty to the client one to make sure that his or her image or product is presented in the best light, to make sure the quality of the work is above and beyond, with no mistakes, etc. And, as such, the designer not only gets paid, but his reputation grows bringing him not only new clients but also repeat business. If he fail to meet the client’s expectations he not only doesn’t get paid, but his reputation suffers and he loses business and loses out on new clientele as well. So the Duty works both ways.

2 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

A propagandist working as a fixer for a hutt in an EotE game should be using obligation not duty.

Not necessarily. Does the Hutt have something on him forcing his servitude or is he a devoted and trusted member of his “staff” in a mutually beneficial relationship.

6 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, it is. But it is still a duty to the client one to make sure that his or her image or product is presented in the best light, to make sure the quality of the work is above and beyond, with no mistakes, etc. And, as such, the designer not only gets paid, but his reputation grows bringing him not only new clients but also repeat business. If he fail to meet the client’s expectations he not only doesn’t get paid, but his reputation suffers and he loses business and loses out on new clientele as well. So the Duty works both ways.

Not necessarily. Does the Hutt have something on him forcing his servitude or is he a devoted and trusted member of his “staff” in a mutually beneficial relationship.

Now you're just arguing symantecs and you know it, the "duty" you're talking about here is not the same type of duty (loyalty, idealism, devotion) that the duty mechanics in AoR represents.

"Neccessarily" is irrelevant because you just admitted to the existence of a scenario where obligation not duty was appropriate to a propagandist, game over Mike, you lose the argument.

But even if he/she was devoted to the hutt, the hutt has enemies that could blow back on the propagandist making obligation appropriate.

34 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, it isn’t. Any game using all three systems would, or at least should be using all three mechanics in one combinatio or another. The point is that the Duty mechanic itself is not an optional rule, it’s a core mechanic, and the two Positive Spin talents are tied to that core mechanic. That is my point. No talent in any of the three lines is dependent upon an optional rule. They’re all dependent upon core mechanics of the game.

"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.