I think there's plenty of interesting discussion to be had from the topics raised by @Daeglan here:

But no way in which to have them productively in the thread in which they originated from...

So here's this thread. For the TLDR/to avoid immersing yourself in the type of swill the internet can foster at it's worst, read the questions as asked provided for you here, below (numbering is mine):

"1. . . .what differentiates an animate object frkm an inanimate one? And i dont mean in the rules but i. The universe. What would one power work and another not work?

2. What power would you ise to freeze a blaster bolt?

3. What power would you use to crush everything around Vader in episode 3?

4. What power would you use to crush the base of the pillar in episode 2?"

To kick it off:

1. To me, this is purely a matter of game design. To make a game out of a narrative, you have to abstract and you have to split hairs somewhere. There's is no obligation for mechanics to adhere to narrative "reality"/rationale in every way, that's simply not their purpose, IMO.

Their purpose is to provide interesting gameplay that can replicate the narrative.

Why can't you Influence droids? Clearly the Force can affect electronics and even droid brains, we have Manipulate, we Bind and Move them, Battle Meditation can freaking guide them, Foresight can give them Defense bonuses, Imbue can boost their mental Characteristics. List goes on. How do they get the positive but not the negative?

Answer: who cares?

2. A narrative flavoring of Protect would be the most likely, IMO (with Duration upgrade?). Wherein you ablate all the damage.

3. + 4. Move with appropriate Upgrades (Magnitude? Range?), including probably "hurl" and "pull out of secure mountings". I imagine this will likely be the most contentious, so my reasoning is thus:

First, the only frame of reference we have for what kind of "Wound Threshold" that inanimate objects "should" have is Hull Trauma, is ships. And of course that is in an order of magnitude greater than standard personal scale Wounds do.

Second, just turn this line of logic on itself: if you allowed Bind to outright crush a door, why couldn't it just outright crush human? To achieve that affect narratively on a human, would require a Crit, and a 150+ percentile roll. No other mechanic result, which all have hard narrative descriptions, is so catastrophic.

So I answer the question with it's own premise which disproves itself as being viable.

Third, as for why Move; Move does damage on that Hull Trauma/structural order of magnitude that it would make sense to assume it requires, and can do it fairly easy with the upgrades. It has mechanics explicitly for destroying the environment (pull from secure mountings). It has all the mechanics, natively, to do it. A Bind check would have to generate minimally 10 pips, if you accept that line of logic. But then what is stone's Wound T/HT vs. Steel's? What is this? What is that?

So to bring it back around to my first point. The game mechanics fullfil their purpose, they're more than capable of replicating what we see in the narrative, at every turn. But they don't hold to any consistent logic because they don't have too/that's not their purpose.

My 2 creds.

6 minutes ago, emsquared said:

2. What power would you ise to freeze a blaster bolt?

2. A narrative flavoring of Protect would be the most likely, IMO (with Duration upgrade?). Wherein you ablate all the damage.

Yep. Also works as narrative for anytime you successfully block all damage (assuming you have narratively appropriate abilities).

7 minutes ago, emsquared said:

3. What power would you use to crush everything around Vader in episode 3?

4. What power would you use to crush the base of the pillar in episode 2?"

3. + 4. Move with appropriate Upgrades (Magnitude? Range?), including probably "hurl" and "pull out of secure mountings". I imagine this will likely be the most contentious, so my reasoning is thus:

Third, as for why Move; Move does damage on that Hull Trauma/structural order of magnitude that it would make sense to assume it requires, and can do it fairly easy with the upgrades. It has mechanics explicitly for destroying the environment (pull from secure mountings). It has all the mechanics, natively, to do it. A Bind check would have to generate minimally 10 pips, if you accept that line of logic. But then what is stone's Wound T/HT vs. Steel's? What is this? What is that?

I differ with you on point about damage done by Move, because technically the damage is done by the object thrown by Move. That said, there is a definite difference in the amount of force (pardon the pun) that needs to be generated in order to throw a starship than to restrain a humanoid. Move operates on an entirely different power level from Bind.

Here's my opinion regarding Dooku pulling down the pillar: Let's assume he's got the full Move tree, allowing him to Move up to 4 Sil 4 items up to range 4 (Extreme). Furthermore, he can Hurl, perform fine manipulation, and pull items out of secure mountings. I as a GM would say, "Okay, it's a Sil 3 object, but I'm gonna say that it's more than just a secure mounting, so I'll count its Sil as 1 larger to represent the increased difficulty. Go ahead and roll your force power check." That requires 5 Force pips (1 for Range, 4 for Silhouette).

11 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

...technically the damage is done by the object thrown by Move.

So a couple things:

The object doesn't have to change Range Bands to be Hurled. You can Hurl an object at a target within the same Range Band.

And since thanks to physics we know, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction: if I am just Hurling the object into the ground, it is doing it's own Silhouette in damage to itself, even as it appears not to move other than to be crushed (by the ground).

Take that principle (the thing being Hurled doesn't actually have to move through space to be damaged) into narrative flavoring-land, and I don't believe there is anything inconsistent with the application I outlined.

11 minutes ago, emsquared said:

So a couple things:

The object doesn't have to change Range Bands to be Hurled. You can Hurl an object at a target within the same Range Band.

And since thanks to physics we know, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction: if I am just Hurling the object into the ground, it is doing it's own Silhouette in damage to itself, even as it appears not to move other than to be crushed (by the ground).

Take that principle (the thing being Hurled doesn't actually have to move through space to be damaged) into narrative flavoring-land, and I don't believe there is anything inconsistent with the application I outlined.

I didn't phrase what I said clearly. The speed and mass of the object are what inflicts the damage. You are exerting force to create that speed, but the force power by itself doesn't do any damage. You have to pick up something to add the mass that allows it to do anything.

If something is on the ground, and you use the force to crush it into the ground, you are creating the forward motion behind it that causes it to take damage.

It's splitting hairs, though, and is pretty much irrelevant.

So, after having thought about this, and getting into some serious revisiting of my previous ideas from the video game discussions of Jedi: Fallen Order, I thought about trying out this houserule for using destiny points in my game. I'm hoping that it would both increase flexibility of the players using their Force Powers to more accurately reflect what we see in the movies and games (being new, inventive uses, and story assisting magguffin uses) as well as creating a collaborative experience at the table for players and storytellers to create unique scenes and characters.

You can flip a Destiny Point to change or modify a single aspect of a Force Power as written to allow it to be used in a new fashion. This generally can only change one aspect of For example, you may change the use of Bind to allow you to affect targets without wound thresholds. Or you may change the use of the Foresee power to see into the past instead of the future. Keep in mind it changes only one aspect, so to see into the past of anyone other than yourself (such as a held object) you would need at least one Magnitude upgrade to see into the additional targets past.

Thoughts?

3 hours ago, Kyla said:

So, after having thought about this, and getting into some serious revisiting of my previous ideas from the video game discussions of Jedi: Fallen Order, I thought about trying out this houserule for using destiny points in my game. I'm hoping that it would both increase flexibility of the players using their Force Powers to more accurately reflect what we see in the movies and games (being new, inventive uses, and story assisting magguffin uses) as well as creating a collaborative experience at the table for players and storytellers to create unique scenes and characters.

You can flip a Destiny Point to change or modify a single aspect of a Force Power as written to allow it to be used in a new fashion. This generally can only change one aspect of For example, you may change the use of Bind to allow you to affect targets without wound thresholds. Or you may change the use of the Foresee power to see into the past instead of the future. Keep in mind it changes only one aspect, so to see into the past of anyone other than yourself (such as a held object) you would need at least one Magnitude upgrade to see into the additional targets past.

Thoughts?

It's workable, but it does require the GM to be on their toes to avoid the players abusing the option, especially if they're trying to make a power do something that's either already covered by an existing power (such as trying to use Misdirect to replicate the effects of Influence's mind trick upgrade) or trying to get a power to do something that's really at odds with its general theme (using Move to heal damage by the user claiming they're manipulating the target on a molecular level to speed up their natural healing process).

The only possible point of concern revolves around how fluidly Destiny Points are spent, not only by the players but by the GM. Depending on the back-and-forth, the cost of having to flip a Destiny Point might be rather trivial for some tables. If your table isn't a case of this, and the players are generally hungry for Destiny Points as the session continues and especially towards the end, then it's not as much of an issue.

Side note: With Bind, there's nothing saying the target needs to have a wound threshold to be affected, as the power's primary function is to render the target immobilized; the dealing damage part is from using the dark side to fuel the power. Heck, Legends even had a light side power that was all about immobilizing the target without causing any harm, one that could put a living being into such a perfect state of stasis that they didn't even age while under the power's effects, though subjecting a living being to this effect for protracted periods of time was seen as very extreme and highly questionable behavior by the Jedi Order. Too many people seem to think that Bind automatically inflicts damage when it's used, when that's absolutely not the case.

One concern with allowing Bind to be used against blaster bolts is that it entirely negates the usefulness of Protect, which already covers this.

Just now, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

One concern with allowing Bind to be used against blaster bolts is that it entirely negates the usefulness of Protect, which already covers this.

Not as much of a concern as this system doesn't have the equivalent of a held/readied action. So the GM has to be a bit on the lenient side to even allow a PC to use Bind as an out-of-turn incidental in the first place, barring the PC having some special talent that lets them use a Force power as an out-of-turn incidental.

I also wouldn't say that permitting Bind to be used to freeze a blaster bolt undercuts the general usefulness of Protect; without a held/readied action mechanic, it takes a fairly specific set of circumstances to use Bind as a defensive measure against an attack, as opposed to Protect being far easier to set up and is easily viable against multiple attacks with the right upgrades.

10 minutes ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

Not as much of a concern as this system doesn't have the equivalent of a held/readied action. So the GM has to be a bit on the lenient side to even allow a PC to use Bind as an out-of-turn incidental in the first place, barring the PC having some special talent that lets them use a Force power as an out-of-turn incidental.

I also wouldn't say that permitting Bind to be used to freeze a blaster bolt undercuts the general usefulness of Protect; without a held/readied action mechanic, it takes a fairly specific set of circumstances to use Bind as a defensive measure against an attack, as opposed to Protect being far easier to set up and is easily viable against multiple attacks with the right upgrades.

But if you can't use it as an out-of-turn incidental, then you can't use it anyway. The DP flip proposed would be to allow its use as an out-of-turn incidental.

My point is simply this: 1. It isn't an out-of-turn incidental, so it doesn't work even if it applies (which I don't think it does). 2. Allowing it to function as an out-of-turn Incidental undercuts Protect.

What if we were to add new nodes to the powers to make the missing effects available?

8 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

What if we were to add new nodes to the powers to make the missing effects available?

I like that idea, but we'd have to make sure it didn't horn in on another power's shtick. Force Crush might be a good Dark Side Mastery upgrade for Bind.

I don't think it's covered anywhere else?

1 hour ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I like that idea, but we'd have to make sure it didn't horn in on another power's shtick. Force Crush might be a good Dark Side Mastery upgrade for Bind.

I don't think it's covered anywhere else?

Can also add something to allow out of turn incidental ranged intercept. Maybe to Move.

Intersteller misdirect.

9 hours ago, emsquared said:

3. What power would you use to crush everything around Vader in episode 3?

4. What power would you use to crush the base of the pillar in episode 2?"

With these 2, I have an alternative thought.

3) Since there hasn't been any examples (that I am personally aware of ) of this being done outside this scene, why slap mechanics on it at all? Could be a purely narrative scene.

4) Just re-watched the clip. Personally, I'd probably say that Dooku's "player" either flipped a Destiny Token and/or used Triumph/Despair on his or Yoda's Lightsaber checks for a "Narratively Vital/Grant Significant Advantage" result, allowing his escape.

2 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

One concern with allowing Bind to be used against blaster bolts is that it entirely negates the usefulness of Protect, which already covers this.

My concern in this regard was establishing a way that a Force Power could be used outside the context of its RAW to provide for effects seen in the movies - in this case; Kylo Ren in TFA freezing Poe and his blaster bolt in place. I would imagine that you are not suggesting that Protect was used to accomplish this, but this creates a situation where Kylo would have to use BOTH Protect AND Bind as an out-of-turn incidentals to produce the effect. As this goes really far into non-RAW territory, I figure the only way to accomplish a feat like this would be with Destiny Point usage.

9 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Yep. Also works as narrative for anytime you successfully block all damage (assuming you have narratively appropriate abilities).

Personally ,this.

Poe has initiative and shoots but gets despair. Ren, having an active lightsaber Reflects and negates all damage and asks the GM can he use the despair for narrative effect on his turn (which is next). GM agrees...within reason.

Ren uses Bind on Poe and describes the effect he wants to use the despair on to the GM, who loves the narrative visual. Mechanically impossible, but narratively really cool.

Not completely different, IMHO, to when one of my players (years ago now) first got a lightsaber and had no powers nor specs with reflect (just a little into Force Sensitive Exile) but asked if she could use the despair rolled be a baddie to damage his weapon 1 step and describe it as his bolt reflecting back and impacting his weapon. I said "Heck yeah! That's awesome!" That scene still get's brought up from time to time, lol.

4 minutes ago, Jareth Valar said:

Personally ,this.

Poe has initiative and shoots but gets despair. Ren, having an active lightsaber Reflects and negates all damage and asks the GM can he use the despair for narrative effect on his turn (which is next). GM agrees...within reason.

Ren uses Bind on Poe and describes the effect he wants to use the despair on to the GM, who loves the narrative visual. Mechanically impossible, but narratively really cool.

Not completely different, IMHO, to when one of my players (years ago now) first got a lightsaber and had no powers nor specs with reflect (just a little into Force Sensitive Exile) but asked if she could use the despair rolled be a baddie to damage his weapon 1 step and describe it as his bolt reflecting back and impacting his weapon. I said "Heck yeah! That's awesome!" That scene still get's brought up from time to time, lol.

That is great in the moment. But i dont think relying on despairs and destiny points for things in movies is the best way to go.

2 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

That is great in the moment. But i dont think relying on despairs and destiny points for things in movies is the best way to go.

That's the whole beauty of this system, IMHO. I've played Star Wars since the 1st WEG books came out and have played all iterations to date. To me and my table, this one captures the mystery and feel of the setting the best so far in many (but not all) regards. All at my table are Star Wars nerds and avid gamers for most of our lives and tend to sometime put conversation on game language (even confusing other gamers sometimes...switching game systems mid sentence lol) and after we started FFG we would comment on just about every scene in game terms. Most all of the scene we would bring up easily fit with the game mechanics. Some mechanically (powers, talents, etc) others narratively (Destiny Token, Triumph/Despair, etc)

I bring this up more as a "that's where he's coming from" statement. I personally see the the use of Despair/Triumph and Destiny not only appropriate but written into to rules (Triumph and Despair both reference the bridge scene in A New Hope).

To me, if it's something that isn't part of the "everyday/defined" use of the power/ability but fits the narrative story telling aspect of the game, then my question is more "does that fit the narrative and it it cool?'. The GM's role is part writer, but mostly director with a bunch of improv actors.

To use another game system (Mutant's and Masterminds and/or Marvel Supers [old version]), you don't need every single aspect of what your abilities can/can't do, only what is commonly available. Power Stunt the rest (use of meta-currency like DP in those games). Rare uses or unexpected and/or unexplained manifestations that will have to be looked into to be done again. This is how new abilities are discovered (in universe, like the alternate versions of Foresight and Influence). Mechanically, they were written up and used as is, but narratively, I'd say that it was a player that liked to push boundaries and experiment using DP, Triumph and Despair, as well as a very forgiving GM, lol.

Sorry, that train of thought must have been a bullet, lol. Basically, I can see your point and can't say you are wrong (you do what's best for you and yours), however I disagree. IMHO, the DP and Triumph/Despair were put in to actually allow some of the things we see in the movies/shows to be done without having to stat every possible outcome.

56 minutes ago, Jareth Valar said:

That's the whole beauty of this system, IMHO. I've played Star Wars since the 1st WEG books came out and have played all iterations to date. To me and my table, this one captures the mystery and feel of the setting the best so far in many (but not all) regards. All at my table are Star Wars nerds and avid gamers for most of our lives and tend to sometime put conversation on game language (even confusing other gamers sometimes...switching game systems mid sentence lol) and after we started FFG we would comment on just about every scene in game terms. Most all of the scene we would bring up easily fit with the game mechanics. Some mechanically (powers, talents, etc) others narratively (Destiny Token, Triumph/Despair, etc)

I bring this up more as a "that's where he's coming from" statement. I personally see the the use of Despair/Triumph and Destiny not only appropriate but written into to rules (Triumph and Despair both reference the bridge scene in A New Hope).

To me, if it's something that isn't part of the "everyday/defined" use of the power/ability but fits the narrative story telling aspect of the game, then my question is more "does that fit the narrative and it it cool?'. The GM's role is part writer, but mostly director with a bunch of improv actors.

To use another game system (Mutant's and Masterminds and/or Marvel Supers [old version]), you don't need every single aspect of what your abilities can/can't do, only what is commonly available. Power Stunt the rest (use of meta-currency like DP in those games). Rare uses or unexpected and/or unexplained manifestations that will have to be looked into to be done again. This is how new abilities are discovered (in universe, like the alternate versions of Foresight and Influence). Mechanically, they were written up and used as is, but narratively, I'd say that it was a player that liked to push boundaries and experiment using DP, Triumph and Despair, as well as a very forgiving GM, lol.

Sorry, that train of thought must have been a bullet, lol. Basically, I can see your point and can't say you are wrong (you do what's best for you and yours), however I disagree. IMHO, the DP and Triumph/Despair were put in to actually allow some of the things we see in the movies/shows to be done without having to stat every possible outcome.

The problem is Kylo clearly knows how to do this feat. So telegating it to just a lucky die roll doesnt work. It seems like something fairly repeatable for him. Triumphs and despairs should be for things that no one planned. Kylo planned to freeze Poe and the blaster bolt.

1 hour ago, Daeglan said:

The problem is Kylo clearly knows how to do this feat. So telegating it to just a lucky die roll doesnt work. It seems like something fairly repeatable for him. Triumphs and despairs should be for things that no one planned. Kylo planned to freeze Poe and the blaster bolt.

Can't say I agree. Just as easily could have been "Holy crap, that actually worked! Now to make it look like I meant to do exactly that." Kylo always come across as one to try those type of off the wall things, trying to live up to the hype and head cannon "coolness" of the Sith and Vader.

If I recall (I've only seen VII and VIII once each) we never see the feat repeated. We may next week, but....

To me, it's an example of trying to instill the sense of terror through "how the heck did he do that?!/How do we stop that?!" moment. If he could regularly do that I believe he would have, but relegating it to a narrative use of Triumph/Despair/Destiny Point it keeps it "I can do this...if things are just right." But, 🤷‍♂️

3 hours ago, Jareth Valar said:

Can't say I agree. Just as easily could have been "Holy crap, that actually worked! Now to make it look like I meant to do exactly that." Kylo always come across as one to try those type of off the wall things, trying to live up to the hype and head cannon "coolness" of the Sith and Vader.

This brings up the fallacy that many folks have a nasty tendency to fall into, namely that because you see a character do something impressive one time on the screen (or page), they have to be able to mechanically accomplish that task with 100% certainty every single time. Heck, WEG's writers fell victim to this with their stat blocks for the movie's iconics, making them incredibly capable to an extent that most PCs would never be able to match, with Luke being a huge offender in that respect.

And like you said, through TFA we do see Kylo doing as you said, trying to live up to his image of Vader, which was something that Snoke was willing to indulge at first until the boy suffered a major defeat on Starkiller Base, with Snoke himself falling prey to overlooking the circumstances and focusing just on the end result.

8 hours ago, Daeglan said:

What if we were to add new nodes to the powers to make the missing effects available?

That also brings up what I think is one of the overall failings of all the Star Wars RPGs when they try to define what the Force can or can't do.

Since film/TV/novel directors/writers/creators aren't bound by RPG rules, they can (and will) create new uses for the Force either as the plot requires or if they think it'd be cool. In each successive film, we've seen new uses for the Force, with the Jedi/Sith doing things that per the prior films were "impossible," with a big one being Palpatine generating lightening out of thin air. TFA followed on that with Kylo stopping a blaster bolt in midair (something I'm pretty sure the FFG writers would have deemed impossible at the time the rules were written), and TLJ with Luke projecting a very convincing illusion of himself across the galaxy (another feat that the current rules don't permit). Heck, I remember when WotC released their Revised Core Rulebook prior to the release of AotC, and then the devs being caught by surprise when Yoda bare-handed stopped Dooku's Force lightening, and having to add a special rule to the Block ability in an errata update to enable the effect.

In that respect, I can see the benefit of scrapping the entire Force power system of this game and going for something more free-form along the lines of the Genesys magic system.

40 minutes ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

This brings up the fallacy that many folks have a nasty tendency to fall into, namely that because you see a character do something impressive one time on the screen (or page), they have to be able to mechanically accomplish that task with 100% certainty every single time. Heck, WEG's writers fell victim to this with their stat blocks for the movie's iconics, making them incredibly capable to an extent that most PCs would never be able to match, with Luke being a huge offender in that respect.

And like you said, through TFA we do see Kylo doing as you said, trying to live up to his image of Vader, which was something that Snoke was willing to indulge at first until the boy suffered a major defeat on Starkiller Base, with Snoke himself falling prey to overlooking the circumstances and focusing just on the end result.

Uhhh most of the force powers require a die roll so it is npt 100% certain. You could fail to accomplish the desired outcome.

7 hours ago, Daeglan said:

The problem is Kylo clearly knows how to do this feat. So telegating it to just a lucky die roll doesnt work. It seems like something fairly repeatable for him. Triumphs and despairs should be for things that no one planned. Kylo planned to freeze Poe and the blaster bolt.

Actually we see him use Bind regularly but the bolts only the one time. The one time where it would have truly mattered, right after he killed Han, he heard Chewie roar and had the time to freeze that bolt but instead ended up taking the hit.

Now, in game terms Chewie could have rolled high on Initiative and followed up the attack with a Triumph but he was in better position to see and effect this blast coming from in front of him rather than to the side as Po's shot was

15 minutes ago, Varlie said:

Actually we see him use Bind regularly but the bolts only the one time. The one time where it would have truly mattered, right after he killed Han, he heard Chewie roar and had the time to freeze that bolt but instead ended up taking the hit.

Now, in game terms Chewie could have rolled high on Initiative and followed up the attack with a Triumph but he was in better position to see and effect this blast coming from in front of him rather than to the side as Po's shot was

Yeah but he didnt act like the freezing the bolt was a surprise and he released it on his terms. So while he may not be able to do it with 100% reliability. It does seem like something he knows how to do as opposed to a lucky result. I would probably start with having the check start out as daunting.

I agree with Jareth, and he illustrates my point. My suggestion of using a Destiny Point was a way mechanically that you could create a one-off narrative situation to allow something to be used out of sequence, common use, or for narrative storytelling effect. Jareth's suggestion of allowing a Despair to introduce the same set of circumstances is a reactive version of this.

A lot of times we tend to think of things as establishing a new rule, and fear creating a precedent, when in reality a one time occurrence to create narrative tension is what we want to do. There's really no need to over think it, so long as the players and GM understand the purpose of the momentary call is to create a enjoyable experience or memorable moment, and it doesn't establish a new use or rule that can regularly be applied, then narrative options like this enhance gameplay.

I feel as though a lot of the conversations that are occurring here on the boards stems from the feeling that to make a rules decision like those suggested would inevitably be abused and lead to players manipulating or trying to break the game. The problem here is that Star Wars, more than any iteration of the system before it, is a collaborative effort on behalf of the players and GM, and if this core idea isn't embraced by the group, there is a LOT of opportunity for abuse and generally bad feelings at the table. There must be a mutual agreement between all the players and GM that the group is telling a single narrative, and working towards the same goal.

I approached my group with the analogy that we were making a Star Wars film, and that I was the Set Designer, Director of Photography and Prop Master, and they were Actors and Stunt Doubles. I explained we were ALL the Director when we were the one rolling dice, and all of us were working off of a script we've never read, as the Dice themselves were the Screenplay Writer. I explained that whether the movie was entertaining or successful depended entirely on choices we made on our turn at Director, and that we all shared the responsibility of making the events that were portrayed in the script as we revealed it as exciting and entertaining as we could.