The biggest issue in my opinion isn't necessarily between Realism and Creativity but consistency within the setting and the game you run. Essentially whatever you choose to do it has to work the same way every time it comes up and whatever you choose should work the same as has already been seen to work within the setting. When you encounter a conflict such as how something works in the newer films as opposed to the originals or prequels, animated series, books etc. then you should choose one and and ignore the others. I personally default to the original three films on how most things work in FFGSW because the game is written for that era but not exclusively, especially if something is explained better in any of the other parts of the series. The key though is to remain consistent in your game and to not get carried away with the Rule of Cool to change how things work as that will break the suspension of disbelief that all RPGs need to function well. So if, for example, you prefer that a character's strength in the the Force is based on their mediclorian count rather than then how it was described by Yoda in ESB then after you finish running yourself into a brick wall repeatedly until you knock yourself unconscious, you continue to use them as an indicator of a character's power and connection to the Force for the rest of your campaign.

I just bought the napalm upgrade (Command & Conquer Generals reference) so get your fireproof suits.

So far I'm happy with the discussion so far and while I prepare to call in an FAE attack (Yeah, more C&C references) bear in mind it is to foster discussion.

I however promise not to insult anyone's parentage, but don't be dismayed if my comments seem to disparage their offspring. But not any of your siblings.

I made an observation when I was very young (high school) and determined, "That which is 'cool' is defined by those who are stupid." [Please cite Mark Caliber if you quote me. I did coin this phrase].

(take a deep breath and read on).

Think I'm wrong? Go study the history of fashion and then get back to me.

And no, nothing that I've seen or learned since has been able to dissuade me from that observation.

Okay try to follow this bit of geometric logic. In our society we tend to use the word 'cool' when we mean 'good.'

However, since stupid people are defining 'cool,' I've come to the conclusion that if you are pursuing 'cool' you're actually in the pursuit of stupidity.

Or mathematically, if <stupid> = <cool> and <cool> = <good> then <stupid> = <good> ?

And in my opinion <stupid> =/= to <good> (That's a 'not equal' sign btw).

Now, consider this next thought exercise:

"How did Geppetto get stuck in a whale? Why did he get himself on a boat when every logical lead pointed a Pinocchio being on land? How was it possible for Pinocchio to even FIND Geppetto in the whale?"

Was it really 'cool' how they finally escaped?

Metaphore?

Sorry for the brevity but I need to go school some folks at the local FGS in X-Wing 2.0. L8R

2 hours ago, Mark Caliber said:

I just bought the napalm upgrade (Command & Conquer Generals reference) so get your fireproof suits.

So far I'm happy with the discussion so far and while I prepare to call in an FAE attack (Yeah, more C&C references) bear in mind it is to foster discussion.

I however promise not to insult anyone's parentage, but don't be dismayed if my comments seem to disparage their offspring. But not any of your siblings.

I made an observation when I was very young (high school) and determined, "That which is 'cool' is defined by those who are stupid." [Please cite Mark Caliber if you quote me. I did coin this phrase].

(take a deep breath and read on).

Think I'm wrong? Go study the history of fashion and then get back to me.

And no, nothing that I've seen or learned since has been able to dissuade me from that observation.

Okay try to follow this bit of geometric logic. In our society we tend to use the word 'cool' when we mean 'good.'

However, since stupid people are defining 'cool,' I've come to the conclusion that if you are pursuing 'cool' you're actually in the pursuit of stupidity.

Or mathematically, if <stupid> = <cool> and <cool> = <good> then <stupid> = <good> ?

And in my opinion <stupid> =/= to <good> (That's a 'not equal' sign btw).

Now, consider this next thought exercise:

"How did Geppetto get stuck in a whale? Why did he get himself on a boat when every logical lead pointed a Pinocchio being on land? How was it possible for Pinocchio to even FIND Geppetto in the whale?"

Was it really 'cool' how they finally escaped?

Metaphore?

Sorry for the brevity but I need to go school some folks at the local FGS in X-Wing 2.0. L8R

Oh wow. This is the biggest cop out I might have read in modern times and is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

Why? Because we’re discussing a roleplaying game, which has never, in the history of mankind, ever been considered “cool” behavior by the masses. However, Star Wars was “cool” enough to warrant being purchased for millions of dollars by a major company due to its following, so are all the “physics” and other concepts you’re hung up on “stupid” by your reasoning?

Sorry you’re still traumatized by your rough high school years, but there’s no reason to apply any of your own personal theories that you developed to make yourself feel better during that timeframe here in a forum where everyone clearly shares at least one of your interests.

And since we’re sharing theories, here’s one of my own: people who use metaphors, similes, and analogies never have any relevant points to what is being discussed, just the need to try and persuade the sheep into believing they have something to add. (By the way, Geppetto was going to Pleasure Island where Pinocchio had gone. Islands are bodies of land surrounded by water. And Pinocchio and Jiminy were told by the Blue Fairy as a dove that Geppetto was swallowed by the whale. Did you even watch that movie, or just remember through the narrow lense of an attempt at making a point?)

Hope you were able to really hold it over the heads of more people who also share your interests during your X-wing matches, H8R

13 hours ago, Flavorabledeez said:

we’re discussing a roleplaying game, which has never, in the history of mankind, ever been considered “cool” behavior by the masses.

I've been surprised to see just how popular Roleplaying games have become in recent history. There was certainly a time when it was only for nerds in the basement or the "uncool" folks who didn't get out of the house a lot. I used to think RP was pretty lame until I had my epiphany that I wanted to be a storyteller and some guy brought a DnD book out to camp one summer. Now I am the GM/DM/KotAL/LM for multiple different games across a few different roleplay systems, and I wish I had gotten into it sooner!

As for @Mark Caliber , "cool" at the role playing table is defined by what your group thinks fits the bill. So unless you say this because you play with a group of stupid people, the definition of "cool" is rather individual based on your own personal tastes.

14 hours ago, Flavorabledeez said:

Sorry you’re still traumatized by your rough high school years

So much that is bad about RPG culture seems to be due to people clinging to their memories of feeling bullied or lonely in school.

17 hours ago, Ghostofman said:

There's plenty of ways to explain such things that would still put you in compliance with the classic approach.

Micro Jump: Short jump within a system or to an adjacent one. If fail, jump still occurs, but you've severely overshot or undershot your target. Success brings within Medium ranged. Typically done with a slower backup hyperdrive. Class 5 or quicker adds a Setback.

Shadow Jump: Hyperspace jump starting or ending near a mass shadow. Hard Computer to over-ride safety features to make such a jump. Then, upgrades based on how close coming to the mass shadow - 2 if to orbit, 3 high atmosphere, 4 low atmosphere.

Static Jump: Normally, a ship must be moving for its astrogation computer to more properly plot a course (vector needed). Upgrade the astrogation check once, plus give two automatic failures. Despairs can cause damage and/or collision with a nearby object during "take off".

Circle Jump: Possibly not discovered until after Ep. 6. Plotting a hyperspace route with a near endless amount of loops around the target. If the distant of the loop from the target is at system range, no adj. to astrogation check. If plot to safe jump distance, upgrade once. Allows for delay coming from hyperspace as you follow the endless loops. Disengage hyperdrive with a Maneuver when you want to end the trip.

Group Jump: Ships in close proximity may link for a hyperspace jump to allow them to enter and exit in near equal timing. Speed is by the slowest craft. One craft makes the astrogation check. Add 1 Setback. Add another Setback per 10 craft in the group. Threats may vary the time or location to each other when the craft exit. Despair can cause craft to accidentally ram each other.

ETA: Oh I missed all of that above when posting. My memories of high school are I was considered "cool" to the masses AND an "RPG nerd" even though it was in the 80's. Given <cool> = <stupid> and <nerd> = <smart>, that implies I was both <stupid> and <smart>? Oh, the paradox.

3 hours ago, evo454 said:

I've been surprised to see just how popular Roleplaying games have become in recent history. There was certainly a time when it was only for nerds in the basement or the "uncool" folks who didn't get out of the house a lot. I used to think RP was pretty lame until I had my epiphany that I wanted to be a storyteller and some guy brought a DnD book out to camp one summer. Now I am the GM/DM/KotAL/LM for multiple different games across a few different roleplay systems, and I wish I had gotten into it sooner!

As for @Mark Caliber , "cool" at the role playing table is defined by what your group thinks fits the bill. So unless you say this because you play with a group of stupid people, the definition of "cool" is rather individual based on your own personal tastes.

I can’t help but agree that it’s far more “acceptable” now than at any time in the past, but I was going off the concept of mass popularity in a mainstream way.

That’s awesome that you got into this kind of thing though. Later is better than never.

2 hours ago, Stan Fresh said:

So much that is bad about RPG culture seems to be due to people clinging to their memories of feeling bullied or lonely in school.

Right? Man, there are textbook examples of that going on here by people’s indirect (but close to direct) self-admittance.

They need to do what is necessary to move past that. Something that would help is letting go of baseless self confidence gained from only participating in activities within a societal safety bubble. You have agency in your life, it doesn’t have to be a continuation or result of your high school experiences.

I started realising how much impact 'Nerd Culture' had had on the mainstream when I was walking near some drunken football supporters one night, and heard one describe another as a "Crap Draco Malfoy" and them all laugh.

24 minutes ago, Flavorabledeez said:

Right? Man, there are textbook examples of that going on here by people’s indirect (but close to direct) self-admittance.

They need to do what is necessary to move past that. Something that would help is letting go of baseless self confidence gained from only participating in activities within a societal safety bubble. You have agency in your life, it doesn’t have to be a continuation or result of your high school experiences.

Playing games of Let's Pretend To Be Elfs and Space Princesses can expose your deep-seated brokenness, who would have guessed?

20 minutes ago, Darzil said:

I started realising how much impact 'Nerd Culture' had had on the mainstream when I was walking near some drunken football supporters one night, and heard one describe another as a "Crap Draco Malfoy" and them all laugh.  

When a movie like Infinity War makes all the money in the world, it's hard to consider nerd culture as distinct from culture.

On 1/8/2019 at 8:49 AM, Flavorabledeez said:

Right? Man, there are textbook examples of that going on here by people’s indirect (but close to direct) self-admittance.

Maybe I'm ignoring all the right people, but care to cite some examples here? I'm not seeing it.

4 hours ago, themensch said:

Maybe I'm ignoring all the right people, but care to cite some examples here? I'm not seeing it.

Mark Caliber’s world view on “cool” stems from his poor high school experiences, so he’s determined to carry that baggage for the remainder of his days.

There’s one more who clings tight to things in hopes they’ll stay “as is,” which makes me believe they’re tied to the concept that some of their self identity consists of Star Wars, and that could be perceived as possibly stemming from poor high school experiences forcing them into “nerd” bonding material. They seem to be mistaking the good times they had with a few friends discussing said material with part of their identity instead of focusing on just the good times.

The prior came right out and said, the latter is just something I’m keeping an eye out for.

1 hour ago, Flavorabledeez said:

Mark Caliber’s world view on “cool” stems from his poor high school experiences, so he’s determined to carry that baggage for the remainder of his days.

There’s one more who clings tight to things in hopes they’ll stay “as is,” which makes me believe they’re tied to the concept that some of their self identity consists of Star Wars, and that could be perceived as possibly stemming from poor high school experiences forcing them into “nerd” bonding material. They seem to be mistaking the good times they had with a few friends discussing said material with part of their identity instead of focusing on just the good times.

The prior came right out and said, the latter is just something I’m keeping an eye out for.

Who's your "one more" that you allude to. Don't be shy.

1 hour ago, Flavorabledeez said:

Mark Caliber’s world view on “cool” stems from his poor high school experiences, so he’s determined to carry that baggage for the remainder of his days.

There’s one more who clings tight to things in hopes they’ll stay “as is,” which makes me believe they’re tied to the concept that some of their self identity consists of Star Wars, and that could be perceived as possibly stemming from poor high school experiences forcing them into “nerd” bonding material. They seem to be mistaking the good times they had with a few friends discussing said material with part of their identity instead of focusing on just the good times.

The prior came right out and said, the latter is just something I’m keeping an eye out for.

Hm, I guess I'm so far out of high school I never would have pictured it that way. I'm old enough for this hobby to actually have been a shunned activity punishable by whoopins - think high school in the Stranger Things era. I mean, I see his post, but it doesn't look like baggage so much as an observation, but hey, to each their own. Psychoanalyzing gamers seems like a lost cause as we're all fairly unique despite our commonalities.

10 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

Who's your "one more" that you allude to. Don't be shy.

You come off as it, but again: I wouldn’t categorize you unless you just threw out a very obvious post littered with examples of it.

10 hours ago, themensch said:

Hm, I guess I'm so far out of high school I never would have pictured it that way. I'm old enough for this hobby to actually have been a shunned activity punishable by whoopins - think high school in the Stranger Things era. I mean, I see his post, but it doesn't look like baggage so much as an observation, but hey, to each their own. Psychoanalyzing gamers seems like a lost cause as we're all fairly unique despite our commonalities.

There’s no need to delve deep into any kind of psychoanalysis there. It’s pretty easy to determine that’s the issue based on that person’s post.

A new member of the ignore list.

2 hours ago, Flavorabledeez said:

There’s no need to delve deep into any kind of psychoanalysis there. It’s pretty easy to determine that’s the issue based on that person’s post.

I find that extraordinarily sad, but you do you.

5 hours ago, themensch said:

I find that extraordinarily sad, but you do you.

I find a person willing to attribute a “cool = stupid” theory formed in high school to any aspect of a tabletop game they’re playing with others who share at least one of their common interests (maybe even bonds of friendship) extraordinarily sad, but you do you.

5 hours ago, Flavorabledeez said:

I find a person willing to attribute a “cool = stupid” theory formed in high school to any aspect of a tabletop game they’re playing with others who share at least one of their common interests (maybe even bonds of friendship) extraordinarily sad, but you do you.

🙄

On 1/6/2019 at 8:21 PM, themensch said:

Any discussion of reality within a fantasy setting must be taken with a grain of salt, particularly when dealing with a setting that is actively changing with every new canonical source.

Have to disagree with that. The only parts people get fussed about in "fantasy" comprise a minuscule portion of the total physical and emotional reality of the setting. All the rest is assumed to be familiar, otherwise the audience couldn't relate. All the basic laws of physics and chemistry are preserved, people (or sentients) still lust for money and power. As the GM, it's just not on me to cater to the < 1% of the universe that makes it different from reality, I also have to confirm that the other > 99% still functions as expected, otherwise there's just confusion at the table. To me, anything that breaks these basic laws is suspect, unless it's covered by one of the noted exceptions (lightsabers, blasters, gravity generators, magic)...and most of these have at least a semi-coherent and contained "pseudo-scientific" explanation, so it's pretty easy.

People get way too hung up on the differences because the similarities are just assumed, then they ignore the similarities and pretend they aren't there. I detest it when people want to throw out everything grounded just because "there are laser swords, so anything goes". I'm still not going to let you throw a rock all the way around Tatooine just because you have an awesome new cybernetic arm...and if you insist, well, that arm is going to have to accelerate that rock to orbital velocity in the space of about a meter, so that first and only throw is going to turn you in a fine mist...

7 minutes ago, whafrog said:

Have to disagree with that. The only parts people get fussed about in "fantasy" comprise a minuscule portion of the total physical and emotional reality of the setting. All the rest is assumed to be familiar, otherwise the audience couldn't relate. All the basic laws of physics and chemistry are preserved, people (or sentients) still lust for money and power. As the GM, it's just not on me to cater to the < 1% of the universe that makes it different from reality, I also have to confirm that the other > 99% still functions as expected, otherwise there's just confusion at the table. To me, anything that breaks these basic laws is suspect, unless it's covered by one of the noted exceptions (lightsabers, blasters, gravity generators, magic)...and most of these have at least a semi-coherent and contained "pseudo-scientific" explanation, so it's pretty easy.

People get way too hung up on the differences because the similarities are just assumed, then they ignore the similarities and pretend they aren't there. I detest it when people want to throw out everything grounded just because "there are laser swords, so anything goes". I'm still not going to let you throw a rock all the way around Tatooine just because you have an awesome new cybernetic arm...and if you insist, well, that arm is going to have to accelerate that rock to orbital velocity in the space of about a meter, so that first and only throw is going to turn you in a fine mist...

I look at your “not catering to <1% of the galaxy” a little differently.

That’s the definition of your heroes (players)in rpgs. The other 99% comprises basic npcs. Player characters break all the “rules” with what they can do. They mow down hordes of villains and fly through impossible to navigate areas of space. There’s the established rules of reality and then there’s those who break or find ways around them to make an engaging story.

And why are all examples of rule breaking brewing over with hyperbole in this thread? All the naysayers seem to go immediately to the most extreme “sky is falling” example to try and bring their point across. Just a heads up: it doesn’t help.

The entire franchise this is based on has really good examples of establishing precedent for something and having the heroes subvert it. Han flies through an asteroid field, Luke brings his father back to the light despite a talking frog telling him to kill him, Leia doesn’t let her brother get too physical with her so it’s not weird later... etc etc

4 hours ago, whafrog said:

Have to disagree with that. The only parts people get fussed about in "fantasy" comprise a minuscule portion of the total physical and emotional reality of the setting. All the rest is assumed to be familiar, otherwise the audience couldn't relate. All the basic laws of physics and chemistry are preserved, people (or sentients) still lust for money and power. As the GM, it's just not on me to cater to the < 1% of the universe that makes it different from reality, I also have to confirm that the other > 99% still functions as expected, otherwise there's just confusion at the table. To me, anything that breaks these basic laws is suspect, unless it's covered by one of the noted exceptions (lightsabers, blasters, gravity generators, magic)...and most of these have at least a semi-coherent and contained "pseudo-scientific" explanation, so it's pretty easy.

People get way too hung up on the differences because the similarities are just assumed, then they ignore the similarities and pretend they aren't there. I detest it when people want to throw out everything grounded just because "there are laser swords, so anything goes". I'm still not going to let you throw a rock all the way around Tatooine just because you have an awesome new cybernetic arm...and if you insist, well, that arm is going to have to accelerate that rock to orbital velocity in the space of about a meter, so that first and only throw is going to turn you in a fine mist...

That seems like a matter of perception and quantification, really. I mean, we have canonical examples of people existing in open vacuum, so where is that fantasy line really drawn? I agree there has to be a familiar basis and that at some point, suspension of disbelief is necessary to allow the formation of these sorts of stories.

But I think we're splitting hairs about the meaning of "take with a grain of salt" - I'm not calling for anyone to throw common sense into the dumpster, just that we can't take this all very seriously - much like your attribution that people get too hung up on the details. I'd typed out a giant list of glaring examples but at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter and doesn't affect my enjoyment. If I wanted hard sci-fi, I'd play a hard sci-fi game in a hard sci-fi setting. But when I want helicopter-lightsaber-wielding space wizards breathing the vacuum of space, maybe I'll take 2 grains of salt.

Edit: to be clear, I do agree with your points and the overall argument that common sense wins the day here. I hope that I didn't seem to propose that it didn't.

I think both have a place in the settings of star wars, but it takes a very contextualised view depending on session.

The galaxy for example and it's standard laws are usually fairly rigid to most people under most situations. You can't fly by flapping your arms because gravity disagrees, you can't endlessly replicate your mind as a droid because your personality is hard wired into your dome and that droids by nature in this universe are highly specialised beings that can only really do one thing*, you can't always talk your way out of a situation if the other side is only intent on killing you, and likewise there will be situations which will be overwhelming in nature if the PC's only try and destroy them. Likewise hacking requires some direct interphase to the system you are hacking; you can't simply make star destoryers drop out of the sky from hacking through a communications system no matter how hard you try. The galaxy has rules that the galaxy adheres to that the players must navigate their ways around.

The force does take this out of perspective at this point and is often the exception to those norms, for a price.For me personally, using Chopter sabers to extend a leap to long (which was effectively what they were doing.) is fine, it's just applying heaps of oriental east theming to the good guys (training montages? Mysterical energies? Look at any marital arts movie and the inspiration is fairly clear. Even Sabercoptering allures to that common past of using mystical energies to preform the impossible.) to the setting that was already a space opera fantasy to begin with. It's no different then an evil guy twisting the very essence of life into a torent of evil energy that burns a man to his very core, or subtly altering someones thought processes to accept a conclusion that they might not have under normal circumstances, or even give a old frail frame youthful vigor when drawn into itself, like Yoda does. However there are limits to that power; mainly imposed by morality (which conflict should be applied quite heavily to self indulgent uses of power.) and understanding that ultimately limits what one can do; sure one could eventually master unleash/protect, but unless your smuggler who has only been self trained can actually explain how he would learn a specialised force power, then he simply cannot learn it as he doesn't know how until he gets the opportunity to steal some knowledge. I believe it is the GM's express right to veto purchases would be considered unreasonable to the spirit, the collective narrative of this campaign.

Star Wars at it's very core is a fantasy tale that is about a warrior who discovers magic to defeat and evil vile wizard and his ultimate henchman and ultimately discovers a power far stronger then the force; love. Star wars by it's very definition a pulp fantasy about a group of people destined to enact a great change in the galaxy that is united over severial movies to ultimately overcome the evil empire overcomes the odds, with the stakes rising with each movie until Luke is before the Emperor of Mankind himself, Lando is flying a gigantic unwieldy ship through it's innards and so fourth. That being said, the universe should stick to it's constants fairly rigidly (The universal constants described in the first paragraph) and such for most of the time to provide a fairly consistent climatic experience, in that there will be some odds the players cannot overcome at that moment in time, and I also believe that the GM has every right to tell the players that "this is a situation you cannot fight indefinitely, it would be much wiser to think of other solutions", especially useful for newer groups who are less familiar with the concept of retreating.

That being said, there will be some situations that throw one or more of those constants out of the window. The force for example might be difficult to understand, but this antagonist seems to project a doppleganger whenever he is defeated, when in truth that being had buried himself in the temple of time itself and was using it to intercept the players earlier attempts to defeat him. The force might only behave as it does because the Jedi *believe* that is the way it's meant to behave, remote hacking is possible if there is a computer spike imbedded in the central console, one of which might have been left intentionally by a long departed ally, allowing them to hack the system remotely. My party once even met the Celestrals in a Son/Daughter/Father type situation, 10 beings of collective power that could reshape the landscape, summoning volcanos out of nothing to harass us and made a home in a spire that constantly constructed itself, all the while the land reshaped itself as we navigated their wraith to collective safety. It made for a spectacular series of scenes that completely uprooted any conventional reality give this environment was so extortionary that it was made it a spectacular "season" ending, but if become common place would lack impact and consistant. The fantastic should be fantastic and rules should be rules.

Which is another point; my GM treats his story arcs like seasons in a series. I can give better examples that make sense of the somewhat disjointed commentary above, just running short on time.

My take away message? I believe the universe is structured around rules that the characters have to navigate in providing situations to, but if they are able to chart the waters well and be ambious, then they too can pull off schemes that seem crazy to the common man, but the PC's should be a well orgingised group given a ever changing puzzle that the GM doesn't have the answer too. That for me, is cool, having the agency to succeed and fail depending on our capabilities and our ability to navigate the universe.

*unless your *legends* IG-88 who was designed to be a shared conscience between 4 built droids. Sure, but that limitation is that they were designed that way, and likely thought along similar wavelengths rather then seeing what the others could see. Then there was that time where one of them took over the death star, because reasons. It was stupid and it's the regular rubbish that droid PC's tend to pull that would make me inclined to expressively forbid that type of droid around my table, largely for the formentioned reasons; droids generally are specialised pieces of kit that aren't sentient. CP3O was the example of PC droid who could never willingly violate his core programming.

18 hours ago, Flavorabledeez said:

And why are all examples of rule breaking brewing over with hyperbole in this thread? All the naysayers seem to go immediately to the most extreme “sky is falling” example to try and bring their point across. Just a heads up: it doesn’t help.

Extreme examples goes both ways; your insistence that those that don't break the rules whenever they can are effectively part of the 99% that are NPCs is extreme (and totally wrong).

As for ridiculous examples, you've used Ezra's time travel, and we can also include all of the "new' hyperspace stuff along with 'copter sabers and even the Force "trinity" of father, son, and daughter. All of those are what I consider to be extremely stupid examples of the direction Star Wars has gone in the last few years. I would have no problems ruling such things out in games I run, and I'm unlikely to play in any game that includes them.