5 hours ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

So trying to argue that Bind cannot be used on droids ...[snip]... is like trying to argue that Move can't be used on organics simply because the writers used the term "object" in the power's description.

Good thing I'm saying the exact opposite of both those things, I guess, huh?

Also, I think if you paid attention to what I'm saying, I'm not "narrowly defining it" I'm using the written words and rules we have to inform the context of the Power.

In the case of Bind, everything everything everything points to the fact that it wasn't designed to be used on anything but living/animate targets. In no small part because to apply the Power as written, mechanically, to inanimate objects yields nonsense in most circumstances, and truly unbelievable, imbalanced feats in the other.

Wow, the volume of self-disillusionment in that last post of yours is almost breathtaking. And here I thought Tramp Graphics had cornered the market on that sort of behavior. Seems you could give him a solid run for his money.

Edit : You know what, for giggles I'll actually humor you, and see what the devs have to say on the topic. It's coming up on the holidays so I'm not expecting a rapid response, but we'll see what they have to say.

Afterwards, if what they says clarifies that your position on Bind is wrong, if you want to keep running that way, I'd hope you'd at least have the basic decency to add the disclaimer that your take is a house rule and not the RAW or RAI.

Ohmilawd, DM... this has really bent you, huh?

The only thing that's gonna need houseruled is how Bind has no way to limit Silhouette of the affected target, period.

And so if they say it is reasonably applicable to objects, the things you could do with one pip, without such a house rule (which is actually what a houserule is - something contrary to what's written - as opposed to what you're saying, because what I'm saying is based entirely on what's written), would be absolutely ridiculous.

38 minutes ago, emsquared said:

Ohmilawd, DM... this has really bent you, huh?

The only thing that's gonna need houseruled is how Bind has no way to limit Silhouette of the affected target, period.

And so if they say it is reasonably applicable to objects, the things you could do with one pip, without such a house rule (which is actually what a houserule is - something contrary to what's written - as opposed to what you're saying, because what I'm saying is based entirely on what's written), would be absolutely ridiculous.

You have some interesting points, namely that the central flaw is that there is no Sil limit to the power. Then again, ruling that it can only be used on enemies and not objects kind of breaks down when this means I can bind an advancing AT-AT just fine, I can't stop a parked speeder from moving on a conveyer belt. It gets a little borked if you just try to sidestep the flaw.

I have two ideas on how to rule it; the first would be to let magnitude pull double duty and let "additional target" also mean "additional point of Sil past one", limiting the basic power to Sil 1. The other would simply to require a discipline check with a difficulty based on Sil for binding big inanimate stuff (or big vehicles, itmakes more sense than using the drivers discipline).

Of course, Move needs similar tweaking for vehicles, particularly flying ones that should be able to "resist" being moved by firing thrusters/gunning engines.

Simply ruling that one power only works on stuff moving under their own power just creates a lot of weird questions, such as wether you could hold a door open if it was a droid controlled door? Or if its a door being pushed closed by someone?

10 hours ago, penpenpen said:

ruling that it can only be used on enemies and not objects kind of breaks down when this means I can bind an advancing AT-AT just fine, I can't stop a parked speeder from moving on a conveyer belt.

See I don't think it means that. It means you can Bind the Pilot of the ATAT, but you cannot target the ATAT itself, because the ATAT doesn't move under it's own power, as you put it, nor have it's own will. And you can't target the speeder on the conveyor for the same reason. I see no inconsistency there. No problem, no imbalance, with "my"/RAW interpretation.

10 hours ago, penpenpen said:

I have two ideas on how to rule it; the first would be to let magnitude pull double duty and let "additional target" also mean "additional point of Sil past one", limiting the basic power to Sil 1. The other would simply to require a discipline check with a difficulty based on Sil for binding big inanimate stuff (or big vehicles, itmakes more sense than using the drivers discipline).

Those are fine if they work for the table, but it's exactly as I said: it requires a houserule to make the RAW work under that interpretation. Indicating to me, an incorrect interpretation of RAW, as RAW should be able to stand on its own, or it's bad game design.

"My"/direct RAW interpretation does stand on its own if you don't allow it to target inanimate objects. Therefore I believe that's the correct interpretation of RAW.

10 hours ago, penpenpen said:

Move needs similar tweaking for vehicles, particularly flying ones that should be able to "resist" being moved by firing thrusters/gunning engines.

It doesn't tho. Move has RAW for dealing with this. Not only are there significant pip-expenditures needed to have a shot at it, it has Sil-based Difficulty. Combine that with standard Difficulty adjustments for narrative positioning, and you can make it all but impossible, 100% within RAW, to grab a speeding starship.

Where Bind fails in this is, Bind doesn't have RAW to address Silhouette of inanimate objects. Bind does have RAW to control balance issues with large Silhouette, "animate" targets, because we have Rival/Nemesis-based Difficulties.

Bind is clearly not meant to be usable on inanimate objects. It's perfectly balanced for animate targets by RAW. There is no way to address inanimate objects, without houserule, therefore that is not RAW.

10 hours ago, penpenpen said:

Simply ruling that one power only works on stuff moving under their own power just creates a lot of weird questions, such as wether you could hold a door open if it was a droid controlled door? Or if its a door being pushed closed by someone?

I still see no problem. You can hold the droid. You can't hold the door (unless you have Move). A pushed door, you can hold the pusher, but not the door. Why?

Because we're talking about space-magic. And giving it rules at all makes no sense, except that you need rules to make a game out of it.

That's all there is to it to me.

This entire approach, of trying to apply logic, to what is not only fundamentally illogical but also just a game mechanic designed to create gameplay , is an exercise in mental masturbation. Nothing more.

The OP of this thread asked about a RAW interpretation. I have him that. Pure and simple.

It's the "other" argument that has no standing in this context, besides: "Well, the rules are meant to be vague, so you can use them as you need." Yes. Sure. We get it, there are no rules except the ones you make/adhere to, as GM. But if that's your argument, then why have RAW at all? Or any conversation about RAW, at all, ever. That's the other side of this.

There's RAW. And there's "well, you can do what you want". Awesome. But that "do what you want"-bit contributes nothing to an understanding of the gameplay mechanics.

You know? Simply splitting it between organics and non-organics is just looking better and better...

You see what I meant about overlap?

1 hour ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

You know? Simply splitting it between organics and non-organics is just looking better and better...

You see what I meant about overlap?

No. Not organic/inorganic .

Animate-only for Bind.

Anything, for Move.

There is no real overlap, because while you could do to animate things using Move, what you can do with Bind, it takes A LOT more XP investment, and is harder/more likely to trigger Darkside.

There's lots of examples of "specialist" Powers in the game. Powers that replicate what a different Power is capable of doing, but does it better/is purpose built, or takes a slightly different angle.

Harm doesn't need to exist. 100% of the time, the analogous fluff that we might see in canon could be attributed to Unleash. Or even vice versa maybe?

Flow when used on allies looks a whole lot like Battle Meditation. Did we need Flow? No, it's just a little different take.

Foresee I think has a Defense boost, how is that literally not what Sense's attack Difficulty upgrades are? We didn't need that. But it's a little different, and gives diversity to the Power.

List goes on.

Bind is just another one in that list.

3 hours ago, emsquared said:

See I don't think it means that. It means you can Bind the Pilot of the ATAT, but you cannot target the ATAT itself, because the ATAT doesn't move under it's own power, as you put it, nor have it's own will. And you can't target the speeder on the conveyor for the same reason. I see no inconsistency there. No problem, no imbalance, with "my"/RAW interpretation.

Those are fine if they work for the table, but it's exactly as I said: it requires a houserule to make the RAW work under that interpretation. Indicating to me, an incorrect interpretation of RAW, as RAW should be able to stand on its own, or it's bad game design.

"My"/direct RAW interpretation does stand on its own if you don't allow it to target inanimate objects. Therefore I believe that's the correct interpretation of RAW.

It doesn't tho. Move has RAW for dealing with this. Not only are there significant pip-expenditures needed to have a shot at it, it has Sil-based Difficulty. Combine that with standard Difficulty adjustments for narrative positioning, and you can make it all but impossible, 100% within RAW, to grab a speeding starship.

Where Bind fails in this is, Bind doesn't have RAW to address Silhouette of inanimate objects. Bind does have RAW to control balance issues with large Silhouette, "animate" targets, because we have Rival/Nemesis-based Difficulties.

Bind is clearly not meant to be usable on inanimate objects. It's perfectly balanced for animate targets by RAW. There is no way to address inanimate objects, without houserule, therefore that is not RAW.

I still see no problem. You can hold the droid. You can't hold the door (unless you have Move). A pushed door, you can hold the pusher, but not the door. Why?

Because we're talking about space-magic. And giving it rules at all makes no sense, except that you need rules to make a game out of it.

That's all there is to it to me.

This entire approach, of trying to apply logic, to what is not only fundamentally illogical but also just a game mechanic designed to create gameplay , is an exercise in mental masturbation. Nothing more.

The OP of this thread asked about a RAW interpretation. I have him that. Pure and simple.

It's the "other" argument that has no standing in this context, besides: "Well, the rules are meant to be vague, so you can use them as you need." Yes. Sure. We get it, there are no rules except the ones you make/adhere to, as GM. But if that's your argument, then why have RAW at all? Or any conversation about RAW, at all, ever. That's the other side of this.

There's RAW. And there's "well, you can do what you want". Awesome. But that "do what you want"-bit contributes nothing to an understanding of the gameplay mechanics.

Well, you make a good point.

But I don't agree.

Because this razor sharp line you're able to draw between animate and inanimate just has a whole heap of other grey areas. I mean, what if the AT-AT has an autopilot droid brain?
I guess the Bounty hunter Seripas is just controlling a vehicle...

But at what point does he become big enough for it be powered armor?

What if the automated door is part of building controlled by an intelligent supercomputer, in essence being akin to a droids body.

If you can bind a droid, what about a remote?

If we keep drawing razor thin lines, there are going to be weirdness when the rules run into the diegetic world.

You can explain away weird in-game discrepancies why you can bind a vehicle with a droid brain autopilot but not one manually driven by going "It's space magic, it doesn't have to make sense!" , but I can't for the life of me understand why, when it's so easy to make it work. This is the game of "Yes, and..." and "No, but..." ! I'm sure we can do better than "No, you can't."

Of course, there's RAW, but for edge cases, FFG has a pretty good track record for suggesting winging it. And then there's RAI, but let's not get into that unless we learn to read minds.

1 hour ago, penpenpen said:

Because this razor sharp line you're able to draw between animate and inanimate just has a whole heap of other grey areas. I mean, what if the AT-AT has an autopilot droid brain?

I've never had a player focus much on Bind (and have never once taken it as a Power in all my years of playing), so cherry picked niche examples haven't came up for me, but I think the line to me be very simple to identify:

Does it have any of the N/PC Characteristics (i.e. can it make an opposed check)? Does it have Strain/Wounds Threshold (as this is another hallmark of the Power that indicates Bind was designed only to affect animate targets, along with the ability of the target to even take an Action and/or Maneuver so that it might be deprived of them, and so on)? No? Not animate. Because that's where the mechanical balance point is for the Power.

Pretty dang simple.

Is it game-mechanically a character? No? Not animate.

I've never seen stats for an "autopilot droid brain", but if it doesn't have Characteristics, it's programmed, not animate, hope ya have Move. Why can't Influence affect droid brains? Maybe the same-ish principle here, who knows?

Seripas can be targeted himself, if he can't control his suit, it's not going anywhere or doing anything. No problem or inconsistency there.

Does the supercomputer have Characteristics (and therefore would it be able to make an opposed check if it was a sufficiently important NPC)? No? Not animate. Hold that door with Move.

I think remotes/some droids is about the best/only conceptual challenge to the interpretation, because I think maybe not all droids are statted(?). But if you're "up against" such a droid - a droid that has literally no mechanical significance to the game besides providing bonuses to someone else acting against you, and/or narrative positioning, it can't attack or mechanically affect you in any way, directly. Is preventing it from acting ever actually gonna come up in a way that requires a roll? Probably not. But if you gotta for some reason, well, guess I hope you got Move, if you're going by RAW.

The razor thin lines are pretty clear to me. And while drawing that line might create head scratching logic, there's more to it:

I'm not saying, and haven't once said, that I wouldn't allow Bind to affect something inanimate, like an un-statted droid, or even a door. I have only, until now, asserted what is apparent RAW. I am aware of, and use vigorously, the flexible and narrative options in the system. And would encourage any GM to do so. But OP asked about scenarios that require the dissecting of the language of RAW, because 1.) it's important to have a common frame of understanding as a community when possible, and 2.) it's important to know if using a Power in a "special" way "should" require a Destiny flip due to the myriad mechanical implications with that action, or some other special consideration.

Which is, frankly, probably what I'd do in the case of a Player wanting to target a reasonable, inanimate object with Bind (never once had this come up in actual play, in the 5+ years I've been running this have, and I run exclusively F&D games because that's what interests me most). Flip me a DP, and you got it.

But that, and anything else ppl chose to allow like it, would be a houserule.

6 hours ago, emsquared said:

I've never had a player focus much on Bind (and have never once taken it as a Power in all my years of playing), so cherry picked niche examples haven't came up for me, but I think the line to me be very simple to identify:

Does it have any of the N/PC Characteristics (i.e. can it make an opposed check)? Does it have Strain/Wounds Threshold (as this is another hallmark of the Power that indicates Bind was designed only to affect animate targets, along with the ability of the target to even take an Action and/or Maneuver so that it might be deprived of them, and so on)? No? Not animate. Because that's where the mechanical balance point is for the Power.

Pretty dang simple.

Is it game-mechanically a character? No? Not animate.

I've never seen stats for an "autopilot droid brain", but if it doesn't have Characteristics, it's programmed, not animate, hope ya have Move. Why can't Influence affect droid brains? Maybe the same-ish principle here, who knows?

Seripas can be targeted himself, if he can't control his suit, it's not going anywhere or doing anything. No problem or inconsistency there.

Does the supercomputer have Characteristics (and therefore would it be able to make an opposed check if it was a sufficiently important NPC)? No? Not animate. Hold that door with Move.

I think remotes/some droids is about the best/only conceptual challenge to the interpretation, because I think maybe not all droids are statted(?). But if you're "up against" such a droid - a droid that has literally no mechanical significance to the game besides providing bonuses to someone else acting against you, and/or narrative positioning, it can't attack or mechanically affect you in any way, directly. Is preventing it from acting ever actually gonna come up in a way that requires a roll? Probably not. But if you gotta for some reason, well, guess I hope you got Move, if you're going by RAW.

The razor thin lines are pretty clear to me. And while drawing that line might create head scratching logic, there's more to it:

I'm not saying, and haven't once said, that I wouldn't allow Bind to affect something inanimate, like an un-statted droid, or even a door. I have only, until now, asserted what is apparent RAW. I am aware of, and use vigorously, the flexible and narrative options in the system. And would encourage any GM to do so. But OP asked about scenarios that require the dissecting of the language of RAW, because 1.) it's important to have a common frame of understanding as a community when possible, and 2.) it's important to know if using a Power in a "special" way "should" require a Destiny flip due to the myriad mechanical implications with that action, or some other special consideration.

Which is, frankly, probably what I'd do in the case of a Player wanting to target a reasonable, inanimate object with Bind (never once had this come up in actual play, in the 5+ years I've been running this have, and I run exclusively F&D games because that's what interests me most). Flip me a DP, and you got it.

But that, and anything else ppl chose to allow like it, would be a houserule.

If you have not had a force user focus on bind why are yoh making a weird house rule?

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

If you have not had a force user focus on bind why are yoh making a weird house rule?

Apparently it's RAW.

7 hours ago, penpenpen said:

Apparently it's RAW.

Or at least his rather convoluted interpretation of RAW.

@Daeglan I've never had anyone try to target an inanimate object with Bind, in 5+ years of playing the game. If you look, that is what I said. So maybe the question you meant to ask is, " If you have not had a force user try to use bind on an inanimate object in 5 years of playing the game, why is this even a question as to whether the Power is meant for that ? "

@Donovan Morningfire And what I'm talking about is actually just the most direct interpretation of RAW.

Because to use it on inanimate objects is when you have to start making up things, adding things, and trying to figure out how it can or can't work in that context. That's when it gets convoluted.

All I've done is illustrate the logic chain.

And no one can seemingly say a relevant thing to demonstrate how it's incorrect, so...

2 hours ago, emsquared said:

@Daeglan I've never had anyone try to target an inanimate object with Bind, in 5+ years of playing the game. If you look, that is what I said. So maybe the question you meant to ask is, " If you have not had a force user try to use bind on an inanimate object in 5 years of playing the game, why is this even a question as to whether the Power is meant for that ? "

@Donovan Morningfire And what I'm talking about is actually just the most direct interpretation of RAW.

Because to use it on inanimate objects is when you have to start making up things, adding things, and trying to figure out how it can or can't work in that context. That's when it gets convoluted.

All I've done is illustrate the logic chain.

And no one can seemingly say a relevant thing to demonstrate how it's incorrect, so...

The rules says target. no where does it say the target has to be alive or organic or anything like that. you seem to think that. Keep in minf the power requires force rating 2 to even get. so the user has a pretty heavy investment in the power.

But, again, the Power has no way to balance itself "against" inanimate objects. Not only that, it doesn't address them at all. None of the upgrades or anything have anything to do with inanimate objects.

That's what leads me to believe it cannot Target inanimate objects.

Anything, anything, anything that a PC would do to interact with an inanimate object would immediately require GM fiat.

Let's go back to the very first post on this thread, and the very first question: " Can I crush a door? "

Well, say, that door is what my BBEG just escaped through, and locked it, and I don't really want them to be able to just crush it and get through it so easily. How can I challenge them? Cuz this is an important door.

You cannot challenge them with this important door if you just look at the Power. There's no method by which you can balance the power in the case of inanimate objects, written into the power.

Yes, you can go back to rule zero, we all know that, always. That's the null statement. That's irrelevant to what the Power was written and intended to do.

Maybe it's just a poorly written Power/rule. I could accept that... except, there's another Power that does have specific rules for this. Move. And in Move it takes several upgrades to get to the point where you could rip a Silhouette 1 (or greater, depending on the size of the door) object out of it's firm mountings (flavor it as crushing, sure). And it would take minimally 2 pips. But a lot of XP investment.

What upgrades then does it take in Bind to crush the door? Just the basic power? That's one pip, and what size door is the limit? Can I crush a hangar bay door too then. Cuz the Power doesn't limit Silhouette. Do you have to be able to do Strain/Wounds /Disorient/Stagger/Crit first? None of that is relevant to doors. No matter what you do, you gotta make it up.

You gotta use GM fiat to use the Power on inanimate objects.

Because the Power does not address inanimate objects, the power was not written nor intended to be usable on inanimate objects.

I for the life of me cannot see how that could ever be construed as convoluted.

I'm a big fan of Occam's Razor, and the most parsimonious solution here is: they overlooked including "enemy" in the full description, because the Power is so self-evident in it's intent.

If the devs come back and say, " Oh yes, that was intended to be usable on inanimate objects. " That's great. I really don't care. But I think I've adequately demonstrated how this would then be the worst/most inadequately written and designed Power in the game.

25 minutes ago, emsquared said:

But, again, the Power has no way to balance itself "against" inanimate objects. Not only that, it doesn't address them at all. None of the upgrades or anything have anything to do with inanimate objects.

That's what leads me to believe it cannot Target inanimate objects.

Anything, anything, anything that a PC would do to interact with an inanimate object would immediately require GM fiat.

Let's go back to the very first post on this thread, and the very first question: " Can I crush a door? "

Well, say, that door is what my BBEG just escaped through, and locked it, and I don't really want them to be able to just crush it and get through it so easily. How can I challenge them? Cuz this is an important door.

You cannot challenge them with this important door if you just look at the Power. There's no method by which you can balance the power in the case of inanimate objects, written into the power.

Yes, you can go back to rule zero, we all know that, always. That's the null statement. That's irrelevant to what the Power was written and intended to do.

Maybe it's just a poorly written Power/rule. I could accept that... except, there's another Power that does have specific rules for this. Move. And in Move it takes several upgrades to get to the point where you could rip a Silhouette 1 (or greater, depending on the size of the door) object out of it's firm mountings (flavor it as crushing, sure). And it would take minimally 2 pips. But a lot of XP investment.

What upgrades then does it take in Bind to crush the door? Just the basic power? That's one pip, and what size door is the limit? Can I crush a hangar bay door too then. Cuz the Power doesn't limit Silhouette. Do you have to be able to do Strain/Wounds /Disorient/Stagger/Crit first? None of that is relevant to doors. No matter what you do, you gotta make it up.

You gotta use GM first to use the Power on inanimate objects.

Because the Power does not address inanimate objects, the power was not written nor intended to be usable on inanimate objects.

I for the life of me cannot see how that could ever be construed as convoluted.

I'm a big fan of Occam's Razor, and the most parsimonious solution here is: they overlooked including "enemy" in the full description, because the Power is so self-evident in it's intent.

The game is a narrative game and if that was the intended balance they would have said so.

6 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

The game is a narrative game and if that was the intended balance they would have said so.

You mean... like they did.

In the Move Power.

3 minutes ago, emsquared said:

You mean... like they did.

In the Move Power.

They did balance to Move power by making it expensive to do what people fear. to hurl a silhouette 4 object reliably you need a significant investment in force trees to get enough force rating, the power tree filled out significantly, discipline skill. moving a silhoette 4 object is a daunting difficulty. You shouldnt use a destiny point on the skill roll as you likely will need to to use the opposite side force pips.
People seem to fear what a power could do with out considering what it takes XP wise to do the feared thing or the fact any starship weapon has a far greater damage potential.

23 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

They did balance to Move power by making it expensive to do what people fear.

So your assertion here seems to be that they didn't balance Bind for inanimate objects... because they didn't fear ppl using it on inanimate objects? Maybe they didn't fear that, because they didn't write it in any apparent way to effect inanimate objects?

Seems like the two arguments are:

1. They didn't balance Bind for inanimate objects, even though it could clearly be used in unbalanced ways, just like Move and literally every other Power.

2. They didn't balance Bind for inanimate objects, because it wasn't written or intended to be used on inanimate objects.

🤔

Stepping in late to this conversation but while it appears to be geared towards living targets, nothing specifically states it won't work on inanimate objects and considering they decided that this page was the optimum page to add the little insert on Force Powers and Narrative basically telling GMs to be lenient and to consider allowing it when players find new and interesting ways to use their character's Force powers outside of the predefined boundaries, I would allow it.

@Richardbuxton actually asked the Developers about this issue way back, and you can find the respnse here:

Thanks, @Tramp Graphics .

For those following along at home here is the relavent question asked:

5c. Can Bind be used on non-sentient targets such as equipment, ships, Blaster shots, doors and the general environment.

And the dev response:

Quote

5. Bind cannot be used to target equipment, gear, items, and whatnot. It can target droids or animals. Though there is no silhouette limit, the GM can rule that some things are too big (or not really appropriate) to be targets of Bind, including droid-run spaceships, space slugs, rancors, and other such items.

So... yea.

Bind cannot target inanimate objects.

12 minutes ago, emsquared said:

So... yea.

Bind cannot target inanimate objects.

Put's on GM hat...."Ehhhh.....I'll allow it"

2 minutes ago, Varlie said:

Put's on GM hat...."Ehhhh.....I'll allow it"

Oh absolutely. House rules are great.

But so is being proven completely, 100% correct directly in the face of all this nonsense.

The full question and answer being referenced:

5a. When using Bind, only "targets, others & enemies" are mentioned as to what you can target with the power. Can one use Bind on living beings such as animals & non-living beings, such as droids?
5b. If yes, is there a silhouette limit on the Bind power?
5c. Can Bind be used on non-sentient targets such as equipment, ships, Blaster shots, doors and the general environment?

Quote

5. Bind cannot be used to target equipment, gear, items, and whatnot. It can target droids or animals. Though there is no silhouette limit, the GM can rule that some things are too big (or not really appropriate) to be targets of Bind, including droid-run spaceships, space slugs, rancors, and other such items.

The first part of the answer is important, as it references personal items, i.e. things that can be carried on one's person, and don't move on their own in the first place. The original question doesn't ask about "a thing that's moving that's not a living creature or a droid." If anything, the dev answer strongly suggests that "yes, you can do things like freeze moving machinery in place" since it's an animate object, as well as blaster bolts .

It also shoots down emsquared's (now proven false) claims that Bind is as restrictive as he claimed, namely that it could only be used on things actively attacking you (false) and that it was inherently limited to silhouette 1 (also false). But I'm sure they'll backpedal and claim they said nothing of the sort, because that's exactly the sort of person they apparently are.