In TROS the Emperor is alive. Ok. Sure. I accept that with a grain of salt, but its not specified how he survived.

He survived being electrically shocked, throw down a 300m+ shaft and some kind of force/electrical explosion, then very soon after (15min?) the explosion of the entire moon he was in. Those are really long, nigh on impossible odds of survival. As a GM I wouldn't even let a player roll for odds that long. They have a better chance of finding shelter on a planet with no breathable atmosphere naked.

So here is my point. This undoes every death where we loose track of the body in the entire trilogy of trilogies. Han Solo? Sure he survived. Why not? He only got stabbed (the wound was cauterized), and fell a few hundred meters, there was no force/electrical explosion, and the moon he was in exploded. Seem like the exact same scenario as the Emperor with one less explosion. Why couldn't he survive?

Having the Emperor live basically undoes every death that we don't explicitly keep track of the body. If we don't see the head come off or a force ghost, they can be alive.

Please don't forget Darth Maul further proves this. (Solo and The Clone Wars Animated Series)

So is this a rant or a spring board for discussion? I'm going to assume the latter, else there is little point in your post.

So to drill it further into TTRPGs - which I think that element was lost in the OP - I have but one response: **** yes! This is only good news. Your mid-boss was trying to negotiate with your players but they showed up in their ship and blasted the meeting place to pieces? Nah, he'll come back later with some crazy-*** scarring and cybernetics and boiling hatred for the party. Embrace the fact that Star Wars is a Space opera steeped in epic fantasy beyond belief. Your thoughts shouldn't be so narrow as to let something like an NPC death stop you from telling a crazy story of good vs evil.

Spring board for discussion. I was very disappointed that this creates scenarios where nothing is permanent but I had not considered that I could use it to surprise my players by bringing back an old foe. Hmm... can't believe I didn't think of that earlier.

I mean, isn’t one of the great unwritten truths of pretty much all fiction, “If you don’t see a body, you can’t be sure they’re dead?” And in stories with fantastical elements (like super-hero stories, fantasy, and - yes - Star Wars, for example), even seeing a body is no guarantee.

If it helps the story (and whether or not it helped TRoS is a whole different thread that would likely end up locked 🤣 ), take advantage of that.

Two words:

Joker Immunity

1 hour ago, GM_Needs_A_Xanex said:

Han Solo? Sure he survived. Why not? He only got stabbed (the wound was cauterized), and fell a few hundred meters, there was no force/electrical explosion, and the moon he was in exploded. Seem like the exact same scenario as the Emperor with one less explosion. Why couldn't he survive?

He absolutely could have, if that's what you want to do.

Now, I think we need to point out that, unlike the Emperor or Maul, Han isn't a powerful Force User. So, his survival becomes a little harder to explain away. But we're dealing with a universe in which people can fly winnebagos from galaxy to galaxy, where you can have a hand-held plasma weapon with no real power source that - in the hands of a properly superpowered user - can reflect blaster fire, and where clone armies can be created in a few years.

There are no limits other than those that we choose to accept. If you have a compelling reason to bring Han back, Star Wars absolutely provides fodder to do so. Or he can be dead. It's up to the storyteller.

2 hours ago, GM_Needs_A_Xanex said:

In TROS the Emperor is alive. Ok. Sure. I accept that with a grain of salt, but its not specified how he survived.

He survived being electrically shocked, throw down a 300m+ shaft and some kind of force/electrical explosion, then very soon after (15min?) the explosion of the entire moon he was in. Those are really long, nigh on impossible odds of survival. As a GM I wouldn't even let a player roll for odds that long. They have a better chance of finding shelter on a planet with no breathable atmosphere naked.

So here is my point. This undoes every death where we loose track of the body in the entire trilogy of trilogies. Han Solo? Sure he survived. Why not? He only got stabbed (the wound was cauterized), and fell a few hundred meters, there was no force/electrical explosion, and the moon he was in exploded. Seem like the exact same scenario as the Emperor with one less explosion. Why couldn't he survive?

Having the Emperor live basically undoes every death that we don't explicitly keep track of the body. If we don't see the head come off or a force ghost, they can be alive.

Please don't forget Darth Maul further proves this. (Solo and The Clone Wars Animated Series)

You do know that Han Solo didnt survive right? That was in Ben Solo's head. He was interacting with a memory and making a different choice.

Just now, Daeglan said:

You do know that Han Solo didnt survive right? That was in Ben Solo's head. He was interacting with a memory and making a different choice.

Oh yeah I am aware of that. My bigger point was that there was no reason he couldn't due to their treatment of the Emperor. I was thinking about how this removed any permanence to death. What I didn't see, and that Kaosoe pointed out was that this opens up numerous role playing options for bringing back old foes.

5 hours ago, GM_Needs_A_Xanex said:

its not specified how he survived.

No, it is specified that he didn’t survive. He specifically states “I have died many times”.

30 minutes ago, DanteRotterdam said:

No, it is specified that he didn’t survive. He specifically states “I have died many times”.

Perhaps a better way to phrase what he said would be, "its not specified how he is still around" or "how he came back."

No, in this case I think that “death” was the issue.

11 hours ago, GM_Needs_A_Xanex said:

What I didn't see, and that Kaosoe pointed out was that this opens up numerous role playing options for bringing back old foes.

How does this open anything up? Storytellers have been doing this forever (James Bond anyone?), you don't need to take any cues from tRoS or Disney to validate your own decisions. The only thing on the table should be the amount of cheese you and your players are willing or eager to swallow. Personally I'd never pull a stunt like this as a GM...and by "this" I really mean the whole E7-9 arc because: it's boring . (part of the reason I haven't even bothered to see tRoS yet) Unless you have a really compelling reason to do it, and you're very sure your players won't roll their eyes and go "whuuut? sheesh", then stay away.

Now sometimes it can be done well, and I have to flip the script a bit and say I think bringing back Maul paid huge dividends (even though I was very dubious when I first heard about it). His character arc was fantastic and brought to a suitably tense and touching finale in Rebels. He also drove the character arcs of key players like Obi-wan, not to mention newer characters like Ashoka, Kanan, and Ezra, steeping their own stories in deep emotion that was otherwise a bit shallow.

So it can be done, but the reason is to give a story depth and drive the protagonists (the PCs) to greater highs and lows. The reason isn't "Disney did it, so I can too".

I felt the sequels, especially the Rise of Skywalker, essentially retconned the entire franchise and in so doing undid the legacy of the original trilogy. After everything we went through with them, what was the point in the end? The empire was back, the emperor was back, the evil was never really defeated, all of their sacrifice and good works turned out to be for naught. It ended up being a crapsack galaxy with heroes robbed of all the things we had been led to believe they accomplished for the past thirty or so years. For me, while being impressive tent-pole spectacles, the sequels were an unnecessary and unsatisfying postscript to the Skywalker Saga. That's said in a way because the actors did a great job and deserved to be in a real story that built rather than demolished what came before. The action, cinematography, and effects were also top notch. It just ended up being far better carnival than cinema.

The biggest mistake of the sequel trilogy starting at the wrong point. Far too much important setup happened off screen and is never explained as too how we got from the last movie to the first movie. It should have started with lule and Ben at the academy. With Snoke driving the fall of Ben on screen.

I mean, Maul survived being cut in half so... He says his hatred of Kenobi sustained him in the dark side. Prior to Maul we had a similar situation with Darth Scion so... I buy it. The irony of the Sith is they basically want immortality in the material world, but its Qui Gon, Yoda, Anakin, and Luke that achieve it in the Force.

6 hours ago, Vondy said:

I felt the sequels, especially the Rise of Skywalker, essentially retconned the entire franchise and in so doing undid the legacy of the original trilogy.

Seems a bit dramatic.

6 hours ago, Vondy said:

The empire was back

It was?

6 hours ago, Vondy said:

all of their sacrifice and good works turned out to be for naught

30 years of peace is not “for naught” though is it? This is like stating the allies winning World War II was for naught because we then had a war in Korea and Vietnam.

6 hours ago, Vondy said:

It ended up being a crapsack galaxy with heroes robbed of all the things we had been led to believe they accomplished for the past thirty or so years.

They still accomplished those things. Just because Ghadaffi was eventually overthrown and killed in the Arab Spring that doesn’t mean he didn’t have a decades long reign in a revolutionary government.

You seem to believe that a “happily ever after” would have been preferable but that just doesn’t exist.

6 hours ago, Vondy said:

I felt the sequels, especially the Rise of Skywalker, essentially retconned the entire franchise and in so doing undid the legacy of the original trilogy. After everything we went through with them, what was the point in the end? The empire was back, the emperor was back, the evil was never really defeated, all of their sacrifice and good works turned out to be for naught. It ended up being a crapsack galaxy with heroes robbed of all the things we had been led to believe they accomplished for the past thirty or so years. For me, while being impressive tent-pole spectacles, the sequels were an unnecessary and unsatisfying postscript to the Skywalker Saga. That's said in a way because the actors did a great job and deserved to be in a real story that built rather than demolished what came before. The action, cinematography, and effects were also top notch. It just ended up being far better carnival than cinema.

I mean, there was always going to be an element of redundancy in this trilogy; why actually make it? TLJ took steps towards making something of that. It showed how Luke's attempt to re-create the Jedi order of the Republic failed, for the same reasons as the original Jedi Order failed (angsty youths feeling they have a legacy to fill), and Rose talks about how the New Republic is neglecting the Outer Rim in the same way that the original Republic did. You could definitely have made it a trilogy about how the Alliance to Restore the Republic's attempt to restore it more-or-less as-was was well-meaning but flawed nostalgia, and the Resistance needed to move beyond that, learn from it and create something new.

Ironic that TROS just went for well-meaning but flawed nostalgia.

TROS to me kinda rams home what I really didn't like about this "Trilogy", most of it was extremely shallow stuff made by arbitrary decisions. The only parts of the movie felt that had any meaningful consequence was the conflict between Rey and Ben. Everything else felt kind of, meaningless. They only won because she did. Sure a decent enough popcorn cruncher, but I always felt that the PT was a look into a different world, TROS was basically digging up the Emperor and paraded him around like a cheap pimp rather then the revelation it could've been. The scent of cheap perfume that wafts in my face kinda set my expectations for what was to come. "Look at this saga conclude" "This is a celebration" sure, keep spewing that pretentious garbage, but I'm still waiting for the actual message the movie is trying to tell me that isn't a product line to sell. XD


But as a roleplaying platform? The fact that "no body, might be alive" is a great thing. I've seen several instinces where the party found some way to either circumvent or otherwise undermine bosses. While it isn't a trick I would employ all the time; having that character survive to pull the same relentless stunt on the PC's can cement them as a credible threat. One example that sticks out in my mind was an "honour duel" one of my friends had against a Mandolorian enforcer, it was meant to be a friendly fist fight to set aside the differences, but by turn 2 the PC had pulled out a lightsaber and by turn three had flung him over a cliff in a very, poorly concealed attempt to immediately start killing off the escort they had. Needless to say, having volunteered to stay with the crime lord as collateral I was not impressed as I ended up nearly dying from that. Thing is though; that creates an opportunity to have a reoccurring adversary who survived all that and returned prepared; jet pack, mag boots, a small army, maybe even some cybernetic implants in his legs that function as Jet boots so he has multiple redundancies against a force user who flings him. That's a pretty cool thing.

That is the thing about reoccurring adversaries actually that should make them dangerous. They should be able to adapt to circumstance that defeated them and return evolved to cope with it. A deadly encounter like a sniper shot out of the blue that immediately cuts down one of the NPC's you've spent up to 20 sessions building a bond with, and watching a speeder pull away somewhere off in the distance. Perhaps they don't adapt and instead develop a flaw from their encounter; maybe they become obsessed and bring every resource imaginable. If they aren't capable of defeating the PC's alone, they might either report to someone higher then them or aim to collaborate with someone else who also bares a grudge. In our campaign the main nemesis of "Ghosts of Dathomire" ended up surviving, completely thwarted by the dark side PC who then went rogue and resurrected an ancient evil. Dathomire itself was destroyed a week later because the galaxy gun shell had been redirected toward it but even so, I do look forward to encountering that character again if she did survive, nothing adds more weight to a campaign then history and even a nemesis of one session can be an ally in another down the road if the circumstances change significantly.

Of course the Emperor isn't really a good example as a reoccurring nemesis as nothing about him had really changed practically speaking, his plan was basically the same (super weapon, set an ambush) and yeah. Though being a sith I guess that makes sense. That being said, if I dropped that into a campaign my PC's would be justified for calling my bluff on it as I'm basically dropping him for shock value unless I set up enough to make it believable and that is just the thing; just because a villain *could* be a reoccurring villain, doesn't mean they always should. Sometimes, dead is better.

2 hours ago, LordBritish said:

TROS to me kinda rams home what I really didn't like about this "Trilogy", most of it was extremely shallow stuff made by arbitrary decisions. The only parts of the movie felt that had any meaningful consequence was the conflict between Rey and Ben. Everything else felt kind of, meaningless. They only won because she did. Sure a decent enough popcorn cruncher, but I always felt that the PT was a look into a different world, TROS was basically digging up the Emperor and paraded him around like a cheap pimp rather then the revelation it could've been. The scent of cheap perfume that wafts in my face kinda set my expectations for what was to come. "Look at this saga conclude" "This is a celebration" sure, keep spewing that pretentious garbage, but I'm still waiting for the actual message the movie is trying to tell me that isn't a product line to sell. XD


But as a roleplaying platform? The fact that "no body, might be alive" is a great thing. I've seen several instinces where the party found some way to either circumvent or otherwise undermine bosses. While it isn't a trick I would employ all the time; having that character survive to pull the same relentless stunt on the PC's can cement them as a credible threat. One example that sticks out in my mind was an "honour duel" one of my friends had against a Mandolorian enforcer, it was meant to be a friendly fist fight to set aside the differences, but by turn 2 the PC had pulled out a lightsaber and by turn three had flung him over a cliff in a very, poorly concealed attempt to immediately start killing off the escort they had. Needless to say, having volunteered to stay with the crime lord as collateral I was not impressed as I ended up nearly dying from that. Thing is though; that creates an opportunity to have a reoccurring adversary who survived all that and returned prepared; jet pack, mag boots, a small army, maybe even some cybernetic implants in his legs that function as Jet boots so he has multiple redundancies against a force user who flings him. That's a pretty cool thing.

That is the thing about reoccurring adversaries actually that should make them dangerous. They should be able to adapt to circumstance that defeated them and return evolved to cope with it. A deadly encounter like a sniper shot out of the blue that immediately cuts down one of the NPC's you've spent up to 20 sessions building a bond with, and watching a speeder pull away somewhere off in the distance. Perhaps they don't adapt and instead develop a flaw from their encounter; maybe they become obsessed and bring every resource imaginable. If they aren't capable of defeating the PC's alone, they might either report to someone higher then them or aim to collaborate with someone else who also bares a grudge. In our campaign the main nemesis of "Ghosts of Dathomire" ended up surviving, completely thwarted by the dark side PC who then went rogue and resurrected an ancient evil. Dathomire itself was destroyed a week later because the galaxy gun shell had been redirected toward it but even so, I do look forward to encountering that character again if she did survive, nothing adds more weight to a campaign then history and even a nemesis of one session can be an ally in another down the road if the circumstances change significantly.

Of course the Emperor isn't really a good example as a reoccurring nemesis as nothing about him had really changed practically speaking, his plan was basically the same (super weapon, set an ambush) and yeah. Though being a sith I guess that makes sense. That being said, if I dropped that into a campaign my PC's would be justified for calling my bluff on it as I'm basically dropping him for shock value unless I set up enough to make it believable and that is just the thing; just because a villain *could* be a reoccurring villain, doesn't mean they always should. Sometimes, dead is better.

That is probably the most disappointing thing about the sequels. TFA set up a lot of potential but the rest didnt really do anything interesting with that set up. It probably doesnt help that neither JJ or Rian really worked together...

Sweet, another TROS thread to get locked. /s

Just now, kaosoe said:

Sweet, another TROS thread to get locked. /s

Yep. That’s why I bowed out once it started to become another, “Here’s the litany of evils of the sequels,” thread.

I'm just gonna drop in to say that the last 35+ years of post-RotJ Star Wars have been stories told in a cyclical mythology. Even before that, Empire "undid" the fairy tale ending of ANH. DSII "undid" DSI.

Totally acceptable that folks don't like one, more or all of the Sequels, but I think these unifying theories go a bit further than they need to.

7 hours ago, kaosoe said:

Sweet, another TROS thread to get locked. /s

Only if people decide to take differences in aesthetic preferences and cinema criticism personally and then get nasty about it. If people just say what they thought and move on (like grown ups) it will be fine. I have a three pass rule for Internet discussions. If I've gone back and forth with something three times and we're just talking past one another or they have resorted to personal attacks I just walk away. Life is too short.

12 minutes ago, Vondy said:

Only if people decide to take differences in aesthetic preferences and cinema criticism personally and then get nasty about it. If people just say what they thought and move on (like grown ups) it will be fine. I have a three pass rule for Internet discussions. If I've gone back and forth with something three times and we're just talking past one another or they have resorted to personal attacks I just walk away. Life is too short.

Considering that the usual suspects (on both sides of this discussion) are saying the same things they've said in every other TRoS thread that ended up getting locked...I think we're already at that point, aren't we?

22 hours ago, kaosoe said:

Sweet, another TROS thread to get locked. /s

Hey, we managed to keep my "State of the galaxy" thread from spinning into chaos and madness, and believe me - I'm coming from a place of contempt and loathing for E7-9, so if ever there was a candidate. . . .

Anyway, back on topic:

I have used Joker Immunity before, letting my players "kill" my Recurring Nemesis in a way so blatantly over the top (Running them through with a saber, dropping them into an underground volcano and then collapsing the whole mountain on them when a Star Destroyer crashed into it on a planet full of zombies. And then I said, as the game wrapped up "Nobody could have possibly survived that" - pretty much everything short of a huge wink to the players. It was so fourth wall breaking that I was the goddamned Kool Aid man.

And even then, I've only ever gotten away with it once.