2 hours ago, Vondy said:Its almost 100% guaranteed that a player will flip a destiny point to avoid having their Saber sundered.
If you're going to allow that, is there still any point in using dice?
Vaapad Control
Yes, because sometimes things just suck.
While its much harder in FFG there are times when the dice do something you don't want to ever happen.
Players do tend to get upset when the toy they love gets destroyed in something other then a major encounter, just because the dice came up bad for them.
While in most FFG games losing my Glow Stick isn't a big deal since I'm usually sitting on a pile of them that I have recovered from enemies it would sting if I just spent two months putting my lightsaber together and in the first fight it gets destroyed before I even use it once and now I have to spend a similar amount of time finding and putting together a new one which grinds the entire campaign to a halt.
56 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:If you're going to allow that, is there still any point in using dice?
I believe so, yes.
Destiny points are a finite resource that do not refresh until your opponents decide to return the favor and "do unto you."
Its a part of the games mechanics and needs to be accounted for.
I would allow player characters and named rivals to do this for signature gear.
Edited by Vondy
9 hours ago, HappyDaze said:That doesn't have to be allowed. This is very much a "mother may I?" game with the GM when it comes to Destiny points (outside of specific talents and signature abilities). Sometimes, it's best if mother says NO.
On the other hand the GM probably should not destroy a characters lightsaber till they have earned the players trust that this will lead to fun and is not a punishment.
1 hour ago, Daeglan said:On the other hand the GM probably should not destroy a characters lightsaber till they have earned the players trust that this will lead to fun and is not a punishment.
This is doubly true during the Imperial era where obtaining a replacement crystal can be difficult and dangerous.
A lightsaber isn't a blaster you can easily replace with some credits and maybe a streetwise roll.
Even worse if the game-master made them go through a series of adventures to get their crystal and build their lightsaber in the first place.
A second go-round for all that could feel a lot more like rigmarole than good fun.
Now, if you are running a clone wars game and obtaining new crystals and parts is easy, or you can just pick them up on the battlefield like candy, that's another story...
I'm looking at you Anakin Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi!
3 hours ago, Vondy said:This is doubly true during the Imperial era where obtaining a replacement crystal can be difficult and dangerous.
The rule specifically says the crystal survives with all mods intact.
Also, this entire diversion is in the context of two master swordsmen player characters facing off in a hypothetical confrontation.
Edited by micheldebruyn4 hours ago, micheldebruyn said:The rule specifically says the crystal survives with all mods intact.
Also, this entire diversion is in the context of two master swordsmen player characters facing off in a hypothetical confrontation.
*Shrug*
There's really nothing germane in this.
Destiny Points are still a part of the game and still have to be accounted for.
You might not like it or allow it at your table , but its well within the scope of RAW.
At this point your arguing over a subjective GM call.
7 hours ago, micheldebruyn said:The rule specifically says the crystal survives with all mods intact.
Also, this entire diversion is in the context of two master swordsmen player characters facing off in a hypothetical confrontation.
Which doesnt change the fact that a gm shouldnt destroy a lightsaber till they have trust. And certainly not unlessthey have a fun story in mind
1 hour ago, Daeglan said:Which doesnt change the fact that a gm shouldnt destroy a lightsaber till they have trust. And certainly not unlessthey have a fun story in mind
Assume there is no GM and it's just two players testing character builds to destruction for fun.
3 hours ago, Daeglan said:Which doesnt change the fact that a gm shouldnt destroy a lightsaber till they have trust. And certainly not unlessthey have a fun story in mind
Presumably, if they are sitting at my table to play, they trust me to run the game. If not, they don't need to be sitting at my table in the first place.
39 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:Presumably, if they are sitting at my table to play, they trust me to run the game. If not, they don't need to be sitting at my table in the first place.
Trust is earned. I have seen enough adversarial gms and have been burned enough times that i dont just assume that is not the case. Hence my original statement.
11 minutes ago, Daeglan said:Trust is earned. I have seen enough adversarial gms and have been burned enough times that i dont just assume that is not the case. Hence my original statement.
I don't have time to waste on players that want to question my intentions at the table. We're talking about a game; they can either take the risk of trusting me or GTFO. The worst thing that can happen is they have a subjectively "bad" time and choose to leave during or after the session and not return (which goes back to GTFO).
1 hour ago, HappyDaze said:I don't have time to waste on players that want to question my intentions at the table. We're talking about a game; they can either take the risk of trusting me or GTFO. The worst thing that can happen is they have a subjectively "bad" time and choose to leave during or after the session and not return (which goes back to GTFO).
Because demonstrating you ate worthy of trust is such a terrible thing. Because earning trust is such a bad thing. Got it.
Edited by Daeglan14 minutes ago, Daeglan said:Because demonstrating you ate worthy of trust is such a terrible thing. Because earning trust is such a bad thing. Got it.
That's not really how it works for most people, but for those that are inherently untrusting, I don't want to spend my entertainment time attempting to overcome their emotional inadequacies. The burden is on them, not me.
EDIT: In short, I prefer to game with those that "will trust unless/until that trust is broken" over those that feel that "trust must be earned."
Edited by HappyDaze53 minutes ago, Daeglan said:Because demonstrating you ate worthy of trust is such a terrible thing. Because earning trust is such a bad thing. Got it.
If it makes you feel any better, if this ever came up I'd rule the irreplacable item not destroyed but broken until repaired without anybody needing to spend Destiny points on that.
And again, this is all about a situation that is not even part of an rpg session, and where no GM is present.
Edited by micheldebruynTrust is not all or nothing, a degree of trust is extended to everyone, but continuing to trust someone when they on the surface appear to have broken the trust is another matter.
For example, if a new guy/gal didn't know everyone was supposed to chip in $10 for food and drinks I'd spot them the $10 the first week, but I wouldn't be loaning a guy I didn't know from Adam $500 so he could "get his car fixed", and I'd be suspicious if he also forgot his wallet the second session he attended.
Similarly, assuming I spent the first 6 session with a new gm on a character arc to build a characters first lightsaber (which is an extension of trust for starting of as a newb instead of a knight) only to have the GM have a npc destroy the saber the first time my character went to use it (an apparent violation of the trust I had extended to the GM), asking me to then continue to trust that the GM isn't going to jerk me around is going to be met with a healthy dose of skepticism.
But a buddy I had gamed with for years, who I knew had a penchant for plot twists and was fair to players would get more leeway. But I would have probably asked said buddy "I assume you've got something planned with this?" If his response was "trust me." I would, but that has to be earned.
14 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:Trust is not all or nothing, a degree of trust is extended to everyone, but continuing to trust someone when they on the surface appear to have broken the trust is another matter.
For example, if a new guy/gal didn't know everyone was supposed to chip in $10 for food and drinks I'd spot them the $10 the first week, but I wouldn't be loaning a guy I didn't know from Adam $500 so he could "get his car fixed", and I'd be suspicious if he also forgot his wallet the second session he attended.
Similarly, assuming I spent the first 6 session with a new gm on a character arc to build a characters first lightsaber (which is an extension of trust for starting of as a newb instead of a knight) only to have the GM have a npc destroy the saber the first time my character went to use it (an apparent violation of the trust I had extended to the GM), asking me to then continue to trust that the GM isn't going to jerk me around is going to be met with a healthy dose of skepticism.
But a buddy I had gamed with for years, who I knew had a penchant for plot twists and was fair to players would get more leeway. But I would have probably asked said buddy "I assume you've got something planned with this?" If his response was "trust me." I would, but that has to be earned.
This is exactly what i am talking about.
On 1/9/2020 at 7:56 PM, EliasWindrider said:From wookieepedia
Form VI
TECHNICAL INFORMATION
FORM NUMBER
6 [1]HISTORICAL INFORMATION
[Source]NOTABLE PRACTITIONERS
MORERECOMMENDED FOR YOU
Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.
Form VI , also known as Niman , the Way of the Rancor , the Moderation Form , and the diplomat's form , was the sixth form of the seven forms of lightsaber combat . This fighting style was a hybrid martial art created by effectively combining elements of the preceding lightsaber forms into a single, generalized form. Niman balanced out between the various specializations of the other forms, covering many of the basic moves, but focusing on overall moderation. This resulted in a fighting style that lacked a significant advantage, but also lacking any serious drawbacks, and thereby not leaving adherents as exposed as some of the more aggressive or specialized forms. Overall, Niman had a fairly relaxed focus on bladework, designed as a simple, easily mastered fighting form for Jedi who preferred to devote most of their time to study and diplomacy. Despite this, it could be absolutely deadly in the hands of a skilled practitioner, as demonstrated by such notables as Exar Kun .
As for who died...
The task force consisted of 212 jedi, plus obiwan and Anakin makes 214, all but 30 of them died so practitioners of other forms didn't fare much better. Point is if you slacked at a lightsaber and fought at genosis you died regardless of which form you practiced. But many lightsaber slacker jedi practiced niman because they could get a lot of benefit for very little investment. That doesn't make it a weak form, while it was uncommon for jedi to devote themselves to the form, those that did were absolutely deadly. That's the lore. And if you read further in the article, niman took 10 years of devotion to *master*. How many lightsaber slacking diplomats at genosis do you think had actually devoted 10 years to mastering niman? Also given that they were fighting against blasters primarily, soresu and shien were the forms best suited to surviving genosis, so shi cho, makashi, and ataru jedi in the arena would be similarly disadvantaged as niman, with similar effort invested (although similar effort wasn't invested)
You lost me when you pulled out the wookapedia. You should probably use the ffg books and the rules from that. You will be taken much more seriosly.
5 hours ago, Metalghost said:You lost me when you pulled out the wookapedia. You should probably use the ffg books and the rules from that. You will be taken much more seriosly.
Especially when you pull out legends
5 hours ago, Metalghost said:You lost me when you pulled out the wookapedia. You should probably use the ffg books and the rules from that. You will be taken much more seriosly.
21 minutes ago, Daeglan said:Especially when you pull out legends
Seriously guys? Why would you bring this back up?
6 hours ago, Metalghost said:You lost me when you pulled out the wookapedia. You should probably use the ffg books and the rules from that. You will be taken much more seriosly.
1) this thread should die
2) it's a valid point that I agree with
But It's required when having a conversation with @Tramp Graphics , when trying to communicate with people it helps to speak their language, I generally don't quote wikipedia on these boards otherwise.
13 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:1) this thread should die
agreed
@Tramp Graphics , you do realise nearly all of your points are rendered moot because you're using old legends lore, do you?
In new canon, the only sources are the rpg, ccg and star wars: everything you need to know book which are all 3 of dubious canonicity, and star wars: secrets of the jedi book that is fully canon but mentions it briefly I believe (haven't the book, saw a few photos on net)
Mentioned dubious canonicity sources list Maul & the great inquisitor as practitionners, which will make everyone rofl if you call them weak (and yes, we know they don't practice only niman but these are the canon practitionners)
All of it having little import mechanically on the game since mechanically, as numerous times you've been told, niman is a very solid spec
As for your claim that elaborate flourishes and learning multiple martial arts is better, I will offer you this quote:
"I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times." Bruce Lee
And the fact that mechanically a character that masters all the lightsaber specs can't reliably use powers to enhance his abilities, and has 1-2 force dies at most to make use of the talents (underwhelming)
Guys!? Seriously!? "This thread should die, now let me continue the argument and rip on Tramp."
Emperor's ghost.
1 hour ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:Guys!? Seriously!? "This thread should die, now let me continue the argument and rip on Tramp."
Emperor's ghost.
hey, one can still do one last attempt before ignoring the madness
On 3/2/2020 at 9:12 AM, P-47 Thunderbolt said:Guys!? Seriously!? "This thread should die, now let me continue the argument and rip on Tramp."
Emperor's ghost.
Thank you for pointing out my hypocrisy, at the time I didn't consider that what I wrote could be considered bashing @Tramp Graphics , now it's obvious to me that it's a reasonable interpretation, I don't know how I missed it before. Mea culpa... but it wasn't intentional.