1 hour ago, Archlyte said:

As the storytellers at the table, why are you focusing on those elements?

Because.... it's my job as GM? Because it's fun?

I enjoy world-building. The MarcyVerse is testament to that. The players expect verisimilitude. They need that world to exist around them and immerse themselves in it. Their world must be more than just shooting stormtroopers. Even when they are shooting stormtroopers, they have reasons and motivations for it beyond not liking the colour white. I asked that question of all the AOR party. For some it was a regrettable necessity. Some felt nothing but bloodlust. One decided she felt it was a merciful release, as their living souls were trapped in an unfeeling clone body, and a clean kill set their spirits free.

Characters must have believable motivations and desires, reasons for doing whatever they do. That needs to be internally consistent with what's gone before.

Also, our world is built one block at a time. New characters bring new things to the table, that are slowly revealed as time goes by. For example, the player who wanted a Seeker brought a vestigial idea to me, I said it was a good baseline, but needed more work. A Sensitive is defined by their tradition, by their relationship to the Force. He went away, did some research, and came up with his own tradition called the Navigators, who were formed by the old Jedi ExplorCorps who went dark centuries ago. The Navigators became an important story element, as an enigmatic society who knew a great many dark secrets. All that just came out of the background for one character. Layers built on layers, respecting what's come before.

18 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

So to my mind it's up to me to try and create a style guide for my games. I have to figure out what works and what doesn't.

That is absolutely necessary. I hope this thread gave you some ideas, or just acted as a sounding board.

Our world wasn't just built by myself either; I coordinated and ran everything, but everyone had their input and even I got reined in, as did Mr Lucas during the original films, by other creative minds around me. For example, I was eager to kill off the established heroes, but everyone else had a lot of fond memories of these characters. So instead they were rebuilt as mentor roles, and became some of my favourite characters to portray.

So yes; you absolutely need to decide what works for you and what doesn't, and brainstorming that is a good thing. Just be careful with phrasing sometimes, as its possible to come across as more dismissive than you intended to be (I've been guilty of that in the past; it's hard to tell when someone's joking on a messageboard). I know we're all better than that.

Just now, Maelora said:

That is absolutely necessary. I hope this thread gave you some ideas, or just acted as a sounding board.

Our world wasn't just built by myself either; I coordinated and ran everything, but everyone had their input and even I got reined in, as did Mr Lucas during the original films, but other creative minds around me. For example, I was eager to kill off the established heroes, but everyone else had a lot of fond memories of these characters. So instead they were rebuilt as mentor roles, and became some of my favourite characters to portray.

So yes; you absolutely need to decide what works for you and what doesn't, and brainstorming that is a good thing. Just be careful with phrasing sometimes, as its possible to come across as more dismissive than you intended to be (I've been guilty of that in the past; it's hard to tell when someone's joking on a messageboard). I know we're all better than that.

Thank you that's good advice. I'm a nice guy in real life (I've been told), so I don't want to come across as a ****. I think as a collaborative effort you may have achieved the highest point in this medium, and I could see that being the real fountain of youth rather than the mirage I am chasing.

20 minutes ago, Maelora said:

Because.... it's my job as GM? Because it's fun?

I enjoy world-building. The MarcyVerse is testament to that. The players expect verisimilitude. They need that world to exist around them and immerse themselves in it. Their world must be more than just shooting stormtroopers. Even when they are shooting stormtroopers, they have reasons and motivations for it beyond not liking the colour white. I asked that question of all the AOR party. For some it was a regrettable necessity. Some felt nothing but bloodlust. One decided she felt it was a merciful release, as their living souls were trapped in an unfeeling clone body, and a clean kill set their souls free.

Characters must have believable motivations and desires, reasons for doing whatever they do. That needs to be internally consistent with what's gone before.

Also, our world is built one block at a time. New characters bring new things to the table, that are slowly revealed as time goes by. For example, the player who wanted a Seeker brought a vestigial idea to me, I said it was a good baseline, but needed more work. A Sensitive is defined by their tradition, by their relationship to the Force. He went away, did some research, and came up with his own tradition called the Navigators, who were formed by the old Jedi ExlorCorps who went dark centuries ago. The Navigators became an important story element, as an enigmatic society who knew a great many dark secrets. All that just came out of the background for one character.

I didn't mean that to imply that this is the only way to do it, but I wonder if your players can feel immersed without reading the label of their blue milk containers. The point of my question of why are you doing this was to ask what you were achieving by getting into those details. I think that these details that come into play organically like your "Navigators" are fine and they are what I would say are necessary details, but the bigger problem for me are the small bits of reality that come creeping in because they bring with them connotations and sub-details that can be corrosive to the fantasy. I would agree that the impulse would be like anyone else who is consuming fiction, to want to know all the answers to every day details, but I will also say that I think doing this puts the ongoing narrative in a box. The more of these things that you define the harder it is to have it be exotic. Verisimilitude is my default mode, and I love it very much, but I think maybe this maybe the exception to when this impulse to portray reality is self-defeating. For me to get that place that can be followed, but not understood I can't answer or allow the players to answer all of those questions.

1 hour ago, Archlyte said:

Thank you that's good advice. I'm a nice guy in real life (I've been told), so I don't want to come across as a ****. I think as a collaborative effort you may have achieved the highest point in this medium, and I could see that being the real fountain of youth rather than the mirage I am chasing.

Heheh, thanks, now you're making me blush!

But really, all I can say is that we found something that worked for us . I honestly thought I was done with Star Wars, that it was an infatuation of my youth that I had simply grown out of. FFG making an RPG in the original movie era was a brilliant idea, and one that brought me back on board. I didn't connect with the cartoons or Force Awakens era at all, so leaving them out was the first step in a journey that led to some interesting places. I'm pushing 50, some of my group are older, and we have to accept there are more days behind us than ahead of us. So having the opportunity to rework a treasured genre as an RPG setting was a labour of love for all of us. I will look back and say that I thoroughly enjoyed all of this.

Quote

but I wonder if your players can feel immersed without reading the label of their blue milk containers.

maybe this maybe the exception to when this impulse to portray reality is self-defeating. For me to get that place that can be followed, but not understood I can't answer or allow the players to answer all of those questions.

I get this, but while you needn't (and indeed shouldn't) lose yourself in minutae, establishing a coherent world is still important. Tying characters into their world is vital - Laera works for Czerka , rather than some undocumented company. The fact that my own PC Kimmy danced with the Neutron Pixies troupe at Jailbirds gives me leads for adventures. Knowing that Tess is dying of Quannot's Syndro me and needs perigen to survive defines her character. These elements bind the characters into their world; so they become a part of it, not separate from it. I always encourage characters to have ties to existing elements (be they canon or MarcyVerse elements) because these things make them more involved with the stories we are telling.

And some things by necessity have to be analogues of real-world things. People still take drugs spice in the Star Wars galaxy, even in canon. Musicians play seedy cantinas, where various beings watch attractive females dancing seductively. Powerful families wield economic and political power, where the right name can get you anything you desire. A crumbling tyrannical Empire causes damage on a vast scale as it slowly implodes. Scheming politicians and would-be dictators vie for supremacy, by any means necessary. Organised crime holds many in a vice-like grip. A secret Illuminati of influential cultists exerts a subtle power across all civilisation, making nations and toppling rulers. War devastates all in its path, bringing suffering to ordinary beings. In some places, there is unity and hope; in others, age-old prejudices against other species like racism and bigotry persist.

These are fairly common tropes that define an RPG campaign, and for us, they pose questions that must be answered. Not every tiny detail must be established in advance, but broad strokes must be known. The characters and GM both contribute towards the process, adding on layers of what we know, and sometimes springing surprises as established facts are challenged and new information comes to light. Some elements get overtaken by events as the campaign grows and changes. While we don't want to get lost in pointless, unimportant details, having a view of both the big picture and the small picture helps define and colour the game we play and the characters we play it with.

5 minutes ago, Maelora said:

Heheh, thanks, now you're making me blush!

But really, all I can say is that we found something that worked for us . I honestly thought I was done with Star Wars, that it was an infatuation of my youth that I had simply grown out of. FFG making an RPG in the original movie era was a brilliant idea, and one that brought me back on board. I didn't connect with the cartoons or Force Awakens era at all, so leaving them out was the first step in a journey that led to some interesting places. I'm pushing 50, some of my group are older, and we have to accept there are more days behind us than ahead of us. So having the opportunity to rework a treasured genre as an RPG setting was a labour of love for all of us. I will look back and say that I thoroughly enjoyed all of this.

I get this, but while you needn't (and indeed shouldn't) lose yourself in minutae, establishing a coherent world is still important. Tying characters into their world is vital - Laera works for Czerka , rather than some undocumented company. The fact that my own PC Kimmy danced with the Neutron Pixies troupe at Jailbirds gives me leads for adventures. Knowing that Tess is dying of Quannot's Syndro me and needs perigen to survive defines her character. These elements bind the characters into their world; so they become a part of it, not separate from it. I always encourage characters to have ties to existing elements (be they canon or MarcyVerse elements) because these things make them more involved with the stories we are telling.

And some things by necessity have to be analogues of real-world things. People still take drugs spice in the Star Wars galaxy, even in canon. Musicians play seedy cantinas, where various beings watch attractive females dancing seductively. Powerful families wield economic and political power, where the right name can get you anything you desire. A crumbling tyrannical Empire causes damage on a vast scale as it slowly implodes. Scheming politicians and would-be dictators vie for supremacy, by any means necessary. Organised crime holds many in a vice-like grip. A secret Illuminati of influential cultists exerts a subtle power across all civilisation, making nations and toppling rulers. War devastates all its path, bringing suffering to ordinary beings. In some places, there is unity and hope; in others, age-old prejudices against other species like racism and bigotry persist.

These are fairly common tropes that define an RPG campaign, and for us, they pose questions that must be answered. Not every tiny detail must be established in advance, but broad strokes must be known. The characters and GM both contribute towards the process, adding on layers of what we know, and sometimes springing surprises as established facts are challenged and new information comes to light. Some elements get overtaken by events as the campaign grows and changes. While we don't want to get lost in pointless, unimportant details, having a view of both the big picture and the small picture helps define and colour the game we play and the characters we play it with.

Yes, and I think that this is helping, so thank you. I would see the things you mentioned as necessary details that are informing the story. I think those things are driving something whereas getting into those details just for the sake of it isn't a good thing. In the last game I played in as a player I watched the GM do a whole scene about a player buying an energy drink from a vendor on a space station. Now you may be able to imagine that into something good, but trust me, in that situation it was really just about the fact that the GM could only think of that detail, and the player was floundering for something to do and just decided to riff with the GM about this energy drink while I wondered if there was a gun nearby that I could use to displace my brain from my head. I don't agree about the analogues though. Those things do not need to be just like real world equivalents. They just don't. There is a magical place between the normal and the needlessly bizarre that describes how these details should look, and the other thing you described about Tying the Characters to the World is also important. These details should both serve as necessary ties between the character and the world, and they should not be too banal or so crazy that they take you out of the setting.

5 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

In the last game I played in as a player I watched the GM do a whole scene about a player buying an energy drink from a vendor on a space station. Now you may be able to imagine that into something good, but trust me, in that situation it was really just about the fact that the GM could only think of that detail, and the player was floundering for something to do and just decided to riff with the GM about this energy drink while I wondered if there was a gun nearby that I could use to displace my brain from my head.

I'll give you that. Even I couldn't wring a scene from that

(Though we did have a scene that was riffing off a sequence from Reservoir Dogs where the characters were eating fast-food while discussing their upcoming heist...)

I'll have to go now as my washing machine just arrived, and it's much bigger than I am! Hope the chat was helpful and others can brainstorm with you. Its an interesting topic.

Just now, Maelora said:

I'll give you that. Even I couldn't wring a scene from that

(Though we did have a scene that was riffing off a sequence from Reservoir Dogs where the characters were eating fast-food while discussing their upcoming heist...)

I'll have to go now as my washing machine just arrived, and it's much bigger than I am! Hope the chat was helpful and others can brainstorm with you. Its an interesting topic.

Good luck with your washing machine. That's another thing I won't be detailing in Star Wars. lmao

6 hours ago, Maelora said:

We have to use analogies so that the players understand what is going on.

Exactly. I mean they speak English, use terms like hell, have displays with the Hindu–Arabic numeral system, give their kids human names like "Luke" instead of Lukerorogirorotamama and generally have a bedrock for the very human viewers/listeners/players to work from. If you want 100% authenticity, have all your players speak "auosb hdpoias bhd, aushu! *&#^&&*! iouhpoinwquy." instead of handwaving the universal translation for the ease of the audience.

This forum software sucks sometimes. Have a picture of my new coffee mug instead of a double post:

"Whosoever holds this mug, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of COFFEE."

4 hours ago, Archlyte said:

I didn't mean that to imply that this is the only way to do it, but I wonder if your players can feel immersed without reading the label of their blue milk containers.

Funny, I was having the same thought about your players. You seem to have much more strict criteria for exclusion and inclusion than anyone else here, so I think your concern about the Marcy-verse is unfounded.

In the end, if you're actually going to play the game you're going to have to decide how much energy you're going to spend defining what's in and what's out, and then how much it's going to cost you to police it and micro-manage the players. There is a point of diminishing returns, where nobody is having fun anymore. If you can define what you want in broad strokes, and allow some leeway for diversions, you'll probably get more enjoyment out of each session.

5 hours ago, Archlyte said:

He started a religion and then began breaking its commandments, so I have been forced to view him as a heretic to his own original vision.

These "commandments" never existed.

I think people like George Lucas and JRR Tolkien should be viewed in a different light than other storytellers. They are primarily world-builders, and the worlds grow as their builders grow. They are organic, it's part of what gives them their staying power. The SW universe is as deep and rich as it is because Lucas kept building, incorporating not just technical lessons of storytelling etc but also incorporating views and opinions from their personal worlds to inform the tones and themes. The entire PT is a parallel with the real life rise of corporatism and the corruption of democracy. It gives context and depth to what in E4 is vaguely hand-waved as the "golden years".

Tolkien was revising the tale of Middle-Earth right up to his death. If he'd have had the time and the technology he might have wanted to revise the novels somewhat, but he was certainly busy rewriting the times leading up to the novels.

This talk of commandments to me smacks of people who want the same thing over and over..."the same, but different". I don't think you can expect to get that from people who pour their life into one work. E4 was fairly barebones in terms of world-building compared to what it is now (even though at the time it set a new standard), does anyone really want to stay inside those narrow confines? People change, their priorities change. I'm sure there are JJ Abrams fans who resent the recent lack of lens-flare...

To add to the ramble and step sideways: I'm certainly not a fan of every choice George made...the "Nooooo!" at end of latest version of E6 is near the top of a long list of poor decisions imho...

There is no Platonic ideal of Star Wars somewhere floating around in the zeitgeist. What Star Wars is depends on who you ask, and when you ask them.

I think Archlite is building up to declaring his own campaign non-canon a few years from now for being insufficiently Star Wars-ian, because his own tastes have changed over time.

3 hours ago, whafrog said:

Funny, I was having the same thought about your players. You seem to have much more strict criteria for exclusion and inclusion than anyone else here, so I think your concern about the Marcy-verse is unfounded.

In the end, if you're actually going to play the game you're going to have to decide how much energy you're going to spend defining what's in and what's out, and then how much it's going to cost you to police it and micro-manage the players. There is a point of diminishing returns, where nobody is having fun anymore. If you can define what you want in broad strokes, and allow some leeway for diversions, you'll probably get more enjoyment out of each session.

I'll be forthcoming if I get complaints from players. So far I have not and my players have told me that they like my games because they are different from other GMs. The time and energy is worth it to me to keep the normality out of the game as I feel it ruins the tone.

3 hours ago, whafrog said:

These "commandments" never existed.

I think people like George Lucas and JRR Tolkien should be viewed in a different light than other storytellers. They are primarily world-builders, and the worlds grow as their builders grow. They are organic, it's part of what gives them their staying power. The SW universe is as deep and rich as it is because Lucas kept building, incorporating not just technical lessons of storytelling etc but also incorporating views and opinions from their personal worlds to inform the tones and themes. The entire PT is a parallel with the real life rise of corporatism and the corruption of democracy. It gives context and depth to what in E4 is vaguely hand-waved as the "golden years".

Tolkien was revising the tale of Middle-Earth right up to his death. If he'd have had the time and the technology he might have wanted to revise the novels somewhat, but he was certainly busy rewriting the times leading up to the novels.

This talk of commandments to me smacks of people who want the same thing over and over..."the same, but different". I don't think you can expect to get that from people who pour their life into one work. E4 was fairly barebones in terms of world-building compared to what it is now (even though at the time it set a new standard), does anyone really want to stay inside those narrow confines? People change, their priorities change. I'm sure there are JJ Abrams fans who resent the recent lack of lens-flare...

To add to the ramble and step sideways: I'm certainly not a fan of every choice George made...the "Nooooo!" at end of latest version of E6 is near the top of a long list of poor decisions imho...

Yeah I agree with what you are saying and it comes down to whether or not you accept what is there or you feel that it's not usable in it's current form to the degree that one would like. I feel like I used to just take it if it came from the official sources, but now I question all of that stuff. I'm not interested in Lucasfilm across its life cycle. I'm interested primarily in EIV/EV qualities, and smart, measured extrapolations from that material.

16 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

I'll be forthcoming if I get complaints from players. So far I have not and my players have told me that they like my games because they are different from other GMs. The time and energy is worth it to me to keep the normality out of the game as I feel it ruins the tone.

This right here is what's important. Sure, Whafrog, Marcy, or I might find this approach to GMing in a specific setting (whatever that setting is, it might not necessarily be Star Wars) isn't a good fit. But if it fits for your players, if that's the experience that you all want, then it's exactly the thing you should be doing.

I actually think you're lucky; I've wanted to try high-immersion games before, but as a GM I've never had either the time to devote to developing my worlds (which are all custom) to the Tolkien-esque levels that are needed, nor the players who want that same intense experience. If you want that, have the time to do it, and have found some players who want the same thing? Bravo indeed, good sir.

That said, my personal tastes and desires have shifted over the years, so it's not really my cup of tea. At the moment. Perhaps in a few more years, I'll have the desire to try it again. Who knows! All I know is right now I'm looking for something like the MarcyVerse .

1 minute ago, Absol197 said:

This right here is what's important. Sure, Whafrog, Marcy, or I might find this approach to GMing in a specific setting (whatever that setting is, it might not necessarily be Star Wars) isn't a good fit. But if it fits for your players, if that's the experience that you all want, then it's exactly the thing you should be doing.

I actually think you're lucky; I've wanted to try high-immersion games before, but as a GM I've never had either the time to devote to developing my worlds (which are all custom) to the Tolkien-esque levels that are needed, nor the players who want that same intense experience. If you want that, have the time to do it, and have found some players who want the same thing? Bravo indeed, good sir.

That said, my personal tastes and desires have shifted over the years, so it's not really my cup of tea. At the moment. Perhaps in a few more years, I'll have the desire to try it again. Who knows! All I know is right now I'm looking for something like the MarcyVerse .

Thank you very much for this, and I do consider myself lucky when it comes to my players. They put trust in me and I want them to have a good time. I think the Marcy-verse is a great way to go, and I readily admit that it would be a better choice than what I follow. It's interesting that you bring up Tolkien, because I think that that setting too requires a lot of discipline to pull off and capture the original feel. I generally look for players whom I think could pull it off, and then I start talking about the level of play and decisions required to do something like Star Wars or Tolkien to fidelity. Gamist people will have none of it because it interferes with mechanical advantage in the games, and sometime Narrativists feel like it constrains the narrative too much with all of the setting laws and concepts. But you can find people who like Sim or who just want something different and they are the best candidates in my experience. To do it you need players who view it as a challenge not as a bother or someone being a dictator. The player attitude toward the effort is paramount.

4 hours ago, Desslok said:

Exactly. I mean they speak English, use terms like ****, have displays with the Hindu–Arabic numeral system, give their kids human names like "Luke" instead of Lukerorogirorotamama and generally have a bedrock for the very human viewers/listeners/players to work from. If you want 100% authenticity, have all your players speak "auosb hdpoias bhd, aushu! *&#^&&*! iouhpoinwquy." instead of handwaving the universal translation for the ease of the audience.

Yeah I guess my point is that where you can depart from mundane reality it might be good to do so, or just not spend time on little concepts that don't advance anything, but just soothe curiosity. Like I said, it's natural for the reader or consumer to want to know everything, but it's bad for Star Wars imo if that becomes the focus.

Exactly. I was a heavy simulationist when I first started gaming. Not to the extend that character got left behind, character has always been important, but I wanted it to be real . I never really got that from any of the games I was in, most of the other players (or my players, when I was the GM) were mostly in the gamist mindset.

But recently, I (and the rest of my game group) have begun to shift into being primarily narrativist for my games. I want them to tell a great story , with interesting characters and good action and intense emotional scenes, and I want it to be real for the character...but I'm free to make concessions in the simulation to help that story along. Like how in the Dresden Files Harry almost never has good things happen to him, because that's the kind of story he's about. In a realistic simulation, his odds would have had to have shifted at some point. No one can be that unlucky (except in my custom world; Fate magic exists to the degree that yes, someone can be supernaturally unlucky).

So, I think most of the argument in this thread has come down to the fact that not everyone has the same goals from their gaming experience, and we sort of tacitly assume that most people's goals are the same as our own. Which you know what they say about butts: we assume everyone has them! Or, wait...

But it appears having the conversation may have helped in some way, so it's still good to have it at times, even if there's some disagreement that happens .

EDIT: I really need to break myself of this habit of not quoting the posts I'm responding to. I was responding to your reply to my post, not the post directly above me. Sorry about that!

On ‎10‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 4:46 PM, Absol197 said:

Exactly. I was a heavy simulationist when I first started gaming. Not to the extend that character got left behind, character has always been important, but I wanted it to be real . I never really got that from any of the games I was in, most of the other players (or my players, when I was the GM) were mostly in the gamist mindset.

But recently, I (and the rest of my game group) have begun to shift into being primarily narrativist for my games. I want them to tell a great story , with interesting characters and good action and intense emotional scenes, and I want it to be real for the character...but I'm free to make concessions in the simulation to help that story along. Like how in the Dresden Files Harry almost never has good things happen to him, because that's the kind of story he's about. In a realistic simulation, his odds would have had to have shifted at some point. No one can be that unlucky (except in my custom world; Fate magic exists to the degree that yes, someone can be supernaturally unlucky).

So, I think most of the argument in this thread has come down to the fact that not everyone has the same goals from their gaming experience, and we sort of tacitly assume that most people's goals are the same as our own. Which you know what they say about butts: we assume everyone has them! Or, wait...

But it appears having the conversation may have helped in some way, so it's still good to have it at times, even if there's some disagreement that happens .

EDIT: I really need to break myself of this habit of not quoting the posts I'm responding to. I was responding to your reply to my post, not the post directly above me. Sorry about that!

Yes I think you and I are very much on the same sort of journey. I am a sim person who has drifted into narrativism. You said it perfectly in that you are willing to make concessions in sim in order to help the story along, and that is exactly how I feel. I think this thread has very much been about simulation though, and that is always a problem. One of the things about simulationists is that there will always be a level of frustration as everyone at the table has a different view of the world. In this thread there are other simulationists who see this setting differently, gamists who really don't care as long as their bonuses aren't impeded by story or world detail opinions, and narrativists who think it's all not that important because they just want the story and don't really care how they get there.

I think for me this setting is the one I feel is the best known, but also the most misunderstood and poorly replicated to my tastes. I say that because a high percentage of the material associated fails to entertain me or enthrall me like the material from the original movies. I then sought to figure out what the offending elements were and to see if anyone else shared my problem. I knew that most if not all would find this topic somewhat insulting, but I needed information and also hoped for at least one person to echo my needs for something that feels like the Star Wars I like best.

1 hour ago, Archlyte said:

Yes I think you and I are very much on the same sort of journey. I am a sim person who has drifted into narrativism. You said it perfectly in that you are willing to make concessions in sim in order to help the story along, and that is exactly how I feel. I think this thread has very much been about simulation though, and that is always a problem. One of the things about simulationists is that there will always be a level of frustration as everyone at the table has a different view of the world. In this thread there are other simulationists who see this setting differently, gamists who really don't care as long as their bonuses aren't impeded by story or world detail opinions, and narrativists who think it's all not that important because they just want the story and don't really care how they get there.

I think for me this setting is the one I feel is the best known, but also the most misunderstood and poorly replicated to my tastes. I say that because a high percentage of the material associated fails to entertain me or enthrall me like the material from the original movies. I then sought to figure out what the offending elements were and to see if anyone else shared my problem. I knew that most if not all would find this topic somewhat insulting, but I needed information and also hoped for at least one person to echo my needs for something that feels like the Star Wars I like best.

Well that's the key what "feels" like Star Wars is different for each person. Thus, there will never be a 100% agreement on what "feels" like Star Wars.

3 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Well that's the key what "feels" like Star Wars is different for each person. Thus, there will never be a 100% agreement on what "feels" like Star Wars.

Yeah you are 100% correct man. It's a terrible curse I have been afflicted with, this sense of sim that is admittedly a product of my brain and not reality.

That it is different things to different people is also the reason for it's success.

1 minute ago, Darzil said:

That it is different things to different people is also the reason for it's success.

Exactly.

11 hours ago, Darzil said:

That it is different things to different people is also the reason for it's success.

Yeah this is super true. I think it's one of the things I like to sometimes protect by trying not to answer too many questions if possible. Like I said earlier I believe that curiosity is natural and we tend to always want the answers, but for something with a mystical and fantasy element, that can result in a less desirable effect in my opinion. It takes discipline to resist the urge to explain.