10 minutes ago, nameless ronin said:

This would be one of those things the GM might find out to be equally “problematic”. If not more so. So, not saying not to do this but if you do expect the GM to feel that you’re trying to one-up him. If the GM is indeed trying to ensure that his GMPC is more effective than the Jedi PCs that’s hardly a good start to the proceedings, but turning this into an arms race is not going to end well either.,

It's really best used sparingly on both sides. I have had a mad scientist Force Sensitive NPC use it to turn the PC's against one another but in turn the aspiring Jedi of the group has used it to avoid getting into confrontations with Mandalorian Mercenaries. Nobody spams the power but every now and then it's used to great effect.

So just a question about influence since we are on the topic, against one target it is pretty strait forward, discipline vs discipline. What about multiple targets? Do you use autofire rules? Something else? Or just take the highest discipline of the bunch?

2 hours ago, GroggyGolem said:

[- - -]

That said I do think that crits deserve a point of Conflict, since they are more lasting harm than just wounds and players can opt to not Crit if they need to. Usually they crit because they want to inflict maximum damage which is kinda opposite of the Light Side way.

[- - -]

YMMV, but I wouldn't necessarily give Conflict for crits either, since I see activating a crit more as a decision the player (not the character) makes. To me, my PC might well be trying to shoot to incapacitate, but then I as a player decides that it's more dramatically correct if the enemy gets seriously injured - after all, fights are usually chaotic. I might (but probably wouldn't) consider attacks that don't use stun (or the Aim maneuver to avoid lethal damage) as Conflict-worthy, but would most likely not give more Conflict for a crit. Unless, of course, the player is making clear that his character is acting out of hatred, enjoying the bloodshed, or something like that.

Just my 2 SEK, of course. Not saying your way is 'wrong'.

1 hour ago, Sir Reginold said:

So just a question about influence since we are on the topic, against one target it is pretty strait forward, discipline vs discipline. What about multiple targets? Do you use autofire rules? Something else? Or just take the highest discipline of the bunch?

I'd just roll against the most difficult target. If it works for them, it works for the other weak-minded fools.

1 hour ago, Sir Reginold said:

So just a question about influence since we are on the topic, against one target it is pretty strait forward, discipline vs discipline. What about multiple targets? Do you use autofire rules? Something else? Or just take the highest discipline of the bunch?

People are getting a little crazy over Influence here I feel like... This opposed check Difficulty should be modified by narrative conditions like any other.

"You want him to believe he is suicidal? Well, considering the fundamental philosophical disparity and tremendous weakness that would represent to a Sith, that's 3 Setbacks. AND I like this guy, I'm flipping a Destiny."

Not to mention that's easily "Emotional Abuse" (2 Conflict), causing someone to believe their life is not worth living, if not Torture (10 Conflict).

I get more heartburn over the "Inflict 2 Strain per pip." Upgrade and that un-resisted damage.

14 hours ago, Decorus said:

They fear what they do not understand see that way too much here.

Move scares me it can do 40 damage this must be fixed...

Lets completely forget the whole pips number and xp required to actually do that on a regular basis.

And that if you are using it as an attack, then you have an attack roll, which factors in all the defensive traits a person might have to avoid being hit with a ranged attack. Like Adversary, Dodge, Defense, etc etc. People always seem to forget that part too, and act like the Move attack is 100% successful without any counter at all.

Nevermind that in order to do 40dmg, there has to be a Silhouette 4 object just lying around to be thrown, and the GM can easily tailor a scene to not have that handy. it has to be within range to move it, and the enemy also has to be in range. And the Force user has to generate enough pips of the right type to even do this, which requires having a high Force rating, and someone with a high Force rating SHOULD be powerful, that's the whole freaking point.

But yeah, investing potentially hundreds of XP to be REALLY good at one thing (Using Move in combat) is OP, but when another spec does the same thing, and is one shotting badguys with a tricked out sniper rifle, somehow that's ok.

1 hour ago, emsquared said:

People are getting a little crazy over Influence here I feel like... This opposed check Difficulty should be modified by narrative conditions like any other.

"You want him to believe he is suicidal? Well, considering the fundamental philosophical disparity and tremendous weakness that would represent to a Sith, that's 3 Setbacks. AND I like this guy, I'm flipping a Destiny."

Not to mention that's easily "Emotional Abuse" (2 Conflict), causing someone to believe their life is not worth living, if not Torture (10 Conflict).

I get more heartburn over the "Inflict 2 Strain per pip." Upgrade and that un-resisted damage.

Yeah, I was more thinking "convincing" people to surrender. However yeah I could see setbacks for stuff like that.

As for the two strain per pip thing, it's really cool if you've got a big force rating, but in maybe 4 sessions I'll have 3, that's not enough to make 2 strain per pip work considering I'm unwilling (for reasons which should be clear) to use black pips.

1 hour ago, Sir Reginold said:

Yeah, I was more thinking "convincing" people to surrender. However yeah I could see setbacks for stuff like that.

If they REALLY don't want to surrender, then it still should be a hard roll to convince them. This system is very variable and nebulous, so it's really hard to justify "X is too powerful because you can just do Y and it's an I Win Button" A smart GM would consider the factors that would help mitigate the OPness of whatever power is in question.

I mean, the rules flat out state that using Force powers on enemies of either Rival/Nemesis level, would require a contested roll, or at least a difficulty check. They're not automatic like when dealing with minions. But, I personally don't see how it's more OP for a Jedi to Influence a group of minions to quit, than it is to blow them up with a massive attack from a high powered gun. I really tricked out gun, in the hands of a tricked out killer, could easily do enough damage (not even counting Triumphs to trigger crits, which = dead minion), to wipe out a squad of minions in one action. That's ok somehow, but if they do it with a handwave, and no bloodshed, that's somehow broken?

Nah, sorry I don't buy it.

4 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

If they REALLY don't want to surrender, then it still should be a hard roll to convince them. This system is very variable and nebulous, so it's really hard to justify "X is too powerful because you can just do Y and it's an I Win Button" A smart GM would consider the factors that would help mitigate the OPness of whatever power is in question.

I mean, the rules flat out state that using Force powers on enemies of either Rival/Nemesis level, would require a contested roll, or at least a difficulty check. They're not automatic like when dealing with minions. But, I personally don't see how it's more OP for a Jedi to Influence a group of minions to quit, than it is to blow them up with a massive attack from a high powered gun. I really tricked out gun, in the hands of a tricked out killer, could easily do enough damage (not even counting Triumphs to trigger crits, which = dead minion), to wipe out a squad of minions in one action. That's ok somehow, but if they do it with a handwave, and no bloodshed, that's somehow broken?

Nah, sorry I don't buy it.

I meant setbacks for things like suicide, I mean that's a fairly ingrained do-not-do-this in your brain.

1 minute ago, Sir Reginold said:

I meant setbacks for things like suicide, I mean that's a fairly ingrained do-not-do-this in your brain.

Yeah but I'm just saying that any significantly divergent thought compulsion should be treated similarly. And that should inform the difficulty of the resisted check.

If you are trying to convince a Stormtrooper to just wave a speeder full of people on, like he's been doing all day, that's probably not that difficult, as it's in line with what he's been doing. If you try and convince the same Stormtrooper to turn on his allies and shoot them, and then jump in your speeder and join your party, that's significantly different from what he would likely do. Suicide wouldn't be the only thing of that extreme nature.

I try and think of it as a line of behavior on a graph. With the X axis representing what they would normally do. Any deviation from that line, either up or down (thus the Y axis), would inform how hard it is to convince them to do it. The further away from Y=0 on that line, the harder it is. And this should be what the GM is considering. Influence isn't just an I Win button, it all depends on what the player is trying to accomplish.

1 minute ago, KungFuFerret said:

Yeah but I'm just saying that any significantly divergent thought compulsion should be treated similarly. And that should inform the difficulty of the resisted check.

If you are trying to convince a Stormtrooper to just wave a speeder full of people on, like he's been doing all day, that's probably not that difficult, as it's in line with what he's been doing. If you try and convince the same Stormtrooper to turn on his allies and shoot them, and then jump in your speeder and join your party, that's significantly different from what he would likely do. Suicide wouldn't be the only thing of that extreme nature.

I try and think of it as a line of behavior on a graph. With the X axis representing what they would normally do. Any deviation from that line, either up or down (thus the Y axis), would inform how hard it is to convince them to do it. The further away from Y=0 on that line, the harder it is. And this should be what the GM is considering. Influence isn't just an I Win button, it all depends on what the player is trying to accomplish.

Sure, I have no problem with any of that. It would put things on a scale from 0-3 setbacks like everything else.

Honestly, the GM is being a **** (boneless, brainless and unappealing!). You should approach this GM and say you think you should try the RAW rules first just to see how it is actually supposed to work, IF it’s actually got problems then let’s change the rules.

If that doesn’t work then I would try playing my character exactly how I wanted, fully expecting to fall to the dark side, although aiming for a somewhat Grey character by the normal rules. Use DS Pips when needed, but probably not more than 3 or 4 a session. Aim for 5 Conflict (normal rules) every single game, you will probably get 7-10 by his rules. I would also make it my point to not disrupt or disrespect the other players, don’t be a bad player just because the gm is being a bad gm.

Ultimately when your Morality bottoms out and the GM is complaining like crazy then lay it on the table, tell him his “house rules are his problem to deal with... no you don’t have to give up your character because that’s nowhere in the rules... no I don’t think I did enough to become dark side... “

I would actually tell the GM that directly: "If you're this fixated on making the characters go dark side then we'll all just start using black pips now and not have to care about it anymore."

4 minutes ago, Garran said:

I would actually tell the GM that directly: "If you're this fixated on making the characters go dark side then we'll all just start using black pips now and not have to care about it anymore."

There are other players, who possibly didn’t have a Dark Side force user as a companion in mind when they created their characters. Using black pips and taking on a lot of Conflict doesn’t necessarily mean playing your character in a way that’s impossible to get along with for a presumably good-aligned party, but it probably won’t help. Having your annoyance with the GM spill out and frustrate the other players is not cool. Bad GMs are a problem, but so are bad players.

25 minutes ago, nameless ronin said:

There are other players, who possibly didn’t have a Dark Side force user as a companion in mind when they created their characters. Using black pips and taking on a lot of Conflict doesn’t necessarily mean playing your character in a way that’s impossible to get along with for a presumably good-aligned party, but it probably won’t help. Having your annoyance with the GM spill out and frustrate the other players is not cool. Bad GMs are a problem, but so are bad players.

Definitely. It’s about finding a deceptive character, a schemer, but on a meta level finding a reason that staying with the group is beneficial. Then also splitting off from the party to occasionally “remove” an obstacle in a less than polite way.

Dont disrupt every single social encounter with pulling your Lightsaber

Playing a Dark Side character is not I murder and torture everyone I meet for fun. That just doesn't work.

You can have a Jedi and a Sith in the same party with some awesome roleplaying.

Sometime the evil guy is the nicest person in the group even while being evil.

1 hour ago, Decorus said:

Playing a Dark Side character is not I murder and torture everyone I meet for fun. That just doesn't work.

You can have a Jedi and a Sith in the same party with some awesome roleplaying.

Sometime the evil guy is the nicest person in the group even while being evil.

Right. You don't have to be a jerk to your friends to be a psychopath cultist who wields a laser sword.

A lot of evils mask their true nature or put on airs when around characters they intend to not get into confrontations with. A party would be one of those groups of characters.

Seems like an adult coversation needs to be had. And you might need to find a different GM.

On 09/03/2018 at 9:19 PM, Darth Revenant said:

Go full on dark side and dodge the issue. You get two less strain but two more wounds. Should be quick to take the plunge with those rules. No Palpatine levels of evil needed. Just play like you normally would and treat people with kindness.

This does look like a good game for Sir Force-Chokeington...

If th gm isnt willing to try to come to a peaceful resolution and he is indeed more interested in playing his mandalorian than making a fun game for your group then a very counter productive solution is... play your character till he goes full on dark side... then kill off the offending gm pc and your character in a spectacular fashon. Then kindly ask the gm if he would like to reconsider his damning rules.

Its always better to try the adult conversation first.

3 hours ago, Decorus said:

Its always better to try the adult conversation first.

Very true. I did note it was a very counter productive solution. In other words not recommended, however probably very effective at burning bridges.

On ‎3‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 6:27 PM, Decorus said:

They fear what they do not understand see that way too much here.

Move scares me it can do 40 damage this must be fixed...

Lets completely forget the whole pips number and xp required to actually do that on a regular basis.

I just want to address this from the point of view of someone who doesn't care about Move specifically. I think there are two spectrums of how this game is played based on the way forum posts are written.

• People who play it basically as a mechanical character builder game and just enjoy getting up to really high XP totals so that they can use all the powers in the books to max level of potency.
• People who want to use the Star Wars universe as the backdrop but want to have an experience that is more about the characters than what the characters can do.

I put a soft cap on XP at 400 because the way that my group plays the game isn't focused on the quad specialist characters with ultimate versions of the trees. I don't fear the use of too much power, I've seen it a hundred times and it just bores me. If you were referring to people saying that no one should use this or that power then I agree with you, but it is the prerogative of the GM and his group as to the level of power and progression that will be allowed into the campaign.

So some progress I think I convinced the current (not the main) gm to tone it down as I explained to him that if I fought two encounters like the last encounter we had (26 enemies) and I'd had a bit more xp (mostly to use move effectively) I could easily gain 40 conflict by attacking 2 minion groups each time. He said he would discuss reducing it to 1 per minion group (edit: discuss with the main GM).

We will see where it goes from here. Also I should note this GM rolls the full d10 (I think he has nothing against move, but I dunno, it makes no difference I couldn't get the xp to increase my ability with it till this ark is done and he's no longer GM (probably)).

I did this by text, which I find more civilized because you can think about your responses, and makes for more civil discourse. YMMV.

On 14/03/2018 at 12:40 PM, Sir Reginold said:

So some progress I think I convinced the current (not the main) gm to tone it down as I explained to him that if I fought two encounters like the last encounter we had (26 enemies) and I'd had a bit more xp (mostly to use move effectively) I could easily gain 40 conflict by attacking 2 minion groups each time. He said he would discuss reducing it to 1 per minion group (edit: discuss with the main GM).

We will see where it goes from here. Also I should note this GM rolls the full d10 (I think he has nothing against move, but I dunno, it makes no difference I couldn't get the xp to increase my ability with it till this ark is done and he's no longer GM (probably)).

I did this by text, which I find more civilized because you can think about your responses, and makes for more civil discourse. YMMV.

Ah what a shame... The adult conversation won out ? and here I was hoping you'd try my method.

? joking of course. I' glad there may be some resolution th this conflicting conflict.