9 minutes ago, themensch said:

No, but it sure unburdens the psyche not having to pick nits over semantics. You ever get the feeling some people are just spoiling for a fight and it's not worth your time to engage?

"You've missed the point entirely and I really have no desire to educate you" isn't not engaging.

2 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

You've missed the point entirely and I really have no desire to educate you. Instead, I'll just ignore you. Goodbye.

Honestly I’m open to read what you have to say for the sake of discussion. I’d actually appreciate a good critique of my views on the whole 99% of fictional universes are NPCs, 1% are legendary PCs or the villains they fight (metaphorically speaking). I’d love a different take on that to see what I’m missing.

1 hour ago, themensch said:

No, but it sure unburdens the psyche not having to pick nits over semantics. You ever get the feeling some people are just spoiling for a fight and it's not worth your time to engage?

What?!? How dare you? By golly, I’ll give you what for...

14 hours ago, LordBritish said:

Of course, if your playing Edge of the Empire or Age of Rebellion without any Force tapping's then we may never ever go to that crazy notch of the galaxy and that would be perfectly fine. Just I believe any force and destiny campaign should at least consider introducing at least one element of the unknown, either something subtle, unexplained, or a big mess that is scarcely understood that might actually be dangerous to mortals. It's those great mysteries that even the GM mightn't know the answer to (but should never tell the players that is the case! They should believe in the world) make a story more then just a table told fable.

You are right, i'm playing Edge with my players, so the Force is rarely shows itself in play other than DPs.

I can totally understand if F&D games are a bit more farstretched. The Force IS working in mysterious ways

1 hour ago, Rimsen said:

rarely shows itself in play other than DPs.

And the camera angles on those are always so awkward...

17 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

And the camera angles on those are always so awkward...

Ew.

Also:

New canon isn't the only guilty party, is it? The asteroid field alone (without the space slug) is actually just a bit of dramatic exaggeration, isn't it? I was under the impression that, in the real world, navigating an asteroid field with a space ship that demonstrates Falcon or TIE (or even star destroyer) levels of nimbleness would be a breeze because asteroids are actually really far apart? So that whole chase is just OT rule of cool.

5 hours ago, Dunefarble said:

Ew.

Also:

New cannon isn't the only guilty party, is it? The asteroid field alone (without the space slug) is actually just a bit of dramatic exaggeration, isn't it? I was under the impression that, in the real world, navigating an asteroid field with a space ship that demonstrates Falcon or TIE (or even star destroyer) levels of nimbleness would be a breeze because asteroids are actually really far apart? So that whole chase is just OT rule of cool.

There's also the improbability of scale of the Death Star, and the way lava and heat convection works and...well, there's a reason Star Wars is generally called Science FANTASY and not science fiction. It doesn't let physics get in the way of a good story. A nebula seems an odd place to draw the line, here.

Part of me thinks the original movies would have been somewhat less groundbreaking and popular had they followed all the rules and laws of science (same for the prequals).

2 hours ago, Rabobankrider said:

Part of me thinks the original movies would have been somewhat less groundbreaking and popular had they followed all the rules and laws of science (same for the prequals).

That's impossible, even for a computer in 1977!

I had noticed early that all of the points I was planning on making were already made so I focused on gaming IRL.

I HAVE also used the "Asteroids aren't that close to each other" argument in the past, but in reflection, it occurred to me that humanity currently only has experience with navigating one asteroid field.

In reality, we can't SEE any other asteroid fields so who's to say that an asteroid field can't be that congested? Indeed in and early proto-solar system you WOULD expect asteroid fields to be that congested in a planetary plane where a planet will eventually form.

I'm guessing that the Ceres plane simply was too thin for planetary formation, which is why it's still an anemic asteroid belt.

GURPS Space has an interesting write up on the Titus-Bode law that explains why planets might form where they do in a system. So another plug for SJ Games "Space" book.