I just mean that they will at some point attempt to put out a line of books that people who like Jedi will like. With all that that entails.

I implore people to try to be supportive of that aim, safe in the knowledge that EotE and AoR won't be going anywhere.

I mean, unless Disney cancel the licence like they just did with a bunch of Marvel video games.

http://www.polygon.com/2014/1/1/5263864/deadpool-delisted-from-steam

If I was to hazard a guess, I would say that the F&D will be set after the Battle of Endor in much the same way EotE is set after the Battle of Yavin, and I think I recall reading somewhere AoR is set after the Battle of Hoth. This seems the most logical choice of era placement to me, as new movies or not the Light Side of the Force begins to rise again after this point. Also I wouldn't be surprised if the format is nigh on identical to the previous 2 books just all Force users as characters.

Most importantly though the books will be Blue..... or Green.

I mean, unless Disney cancel the licence like they just did with a bunch of Marvel video games.

http://www.polygon.com/2014/1/1/5263864/deadpool-delisted-from-steam

I reckon this is more to do with getting all their licencing deals to a consistent level so it doesn't end up like Marvels movie licence's.

All stories get tiresome if they get repeated over and over. Not the best of points if you ask me.

What I'm saying is that while the generally self-serving members of an EE campaign can be 'tbought' by the Alliance for an AR-themed adventure (like Han Solo was), the opposite is less true. A fighter pilot/commando/commodore isn't likely to be able to constantly take time away from their duties to the Rebellion in order to go help out the Trader and Scoundrel with their newest scheme. Sure, it can happen once in a while, but 'odd couples' like this don't make for good permanently mixed groups in my opinion unless the EE characters are pretty much willing to give up their independence (like Han Solo and Lando who both pretty much sold out to the Alliance/New Republic and became AR characters that just happened to start with EE careers).

They are putting out a book on Jedi that a great many people are looking forward to. It's called Force & Destiny. It's just not going to be the suped up, over the top, awesomer than awesome Jedi that you want, Erik. I hope you can still be suportive of the game even if you don't play.

And there is no reason that careers from each book can play together. The focus of adventures can shift. You can have one adventure where the group has to deal with an Imperial attack on, oh I don't know, an ice planet. And then later on have to deal with some crimelord or something. And then get back to dealing with the Empire again, maybe throwing some Force stuff in there.

You can mix and match obligation/duty/"commitment" mechanics or you can just go with one. Either way should be viable. Much like a character's obligation can shift game to game, so can the focus of the party. This time it is some archeological dig for a lost holocron, next time a Rebel mission, and after that they deal with that pesky fixer about procuring this or that.

And HD, wasn't it you asking about rebuilding a pilot character using the career in the AoR beta because it fit your character ideal? Or was that someone else?

Frankly it seems to me anyone with concerns about cross compatibility of the books should want F&D to take place after the Battle of Endor. Palpatine seized power through subterfuge and conspiracy slowly a little at a time. The Alliance took it back by blowing up a lot of stuff. The galaxy is in chaos after the Battle of Endor. If players use the EU and the Clone Wars, Jabba was the supreme honcho of the Hutt, so they are probably in the midst of an internal war for power with his death. It would be no stretch at all the new Jedi would seek to use any resource they could to begin to try and get a handle of the galaxy wide mess that would surely come with the collapse of the Empire. Any players connected to 'undesirables' would certainly find work with the new Jedi.

But, because Disney haven't made up what happens after Endor yet FFG probably can't do that.

And HD, wasn't it you asking about rebuilding a pilot character using the career in the AoR beta because it fit your character ideal? Or was that someone else?

Yes. I have an Ace (Driver, Pilot) that is a professional racer. If it moves fast, she can do amazing things with it. She has zero connection to the Rebellion, and she doesn't really have any interest in the themes of AR. However, the Career Skills of the Ace fit her better than Smuggler (for Pilot) or Explorer (for Driver), so she used that Career.

My argument isn't that you can't use pieces from one game and put them in another. You very much can, and I'm thankful for that. What I am pointing out is that each game line tends to be made for different character motivations and those may not cross as easily between games. The things that motivate a AR character may not get enough attention in an EE game and vice versa to keep the players happy in a truly mixed campaign (as opposed to a campaign of one type that simply mixes mechanical pieces from another line).

Motivations can very within each aspect of the game or in combination, not to mention within each group . Some people may be fine confining themselves within each aspect. Others may be looking forward to combining those aspects together into one whole. A good GM doesn't focus on one character's motivation adventure to adventure, why should he confine himself to one aspect of the game? And why do people presume that others can not successfully combine them? Seems kind of silly to me.

But, because Disney haven't made up what happens after Endor yet FFG probably can't do that.

But it would be highly naive to think that FFG haven't been in contact with Disney and/or vice versa. I know that if I had purchased the licence and a year later someone else owned the parent company I'd be on the phone in a heartbeat, also FFG were probably made aware at least a few months before it went public as the transfer didn't just happen overnight.

Disney will have guidelines in place for licencee's informing them of what they can and can't do, and to be fair setting the book post Endor makes the most sense, as a) before then the Jedi were in hiding hence the limit on force users currently, b) it really is as simple as saying Luke defeated the Emperor and then started to look for other Jedi or even the Empire goes into decline after Endor and Jedi come out of hiding. Both logical routes after Jedi.

You never know they may throw us all for a loop and set during the Clone Wars. :-p

Post Endor EU is still coming out, I don't think that's a super huge issue.

I'm interested to see how well the demo book sells. My guess is "like hotcakes."

All stories get tiresome if they get repeated over and over. Not the best of points if you ask me.

What I'm saying is that while the generally self-serving members of an EE campaign can be 'tbought' by the Alliance for an AR-themed adventure (like Han Solo was), the opposite is less true. A fighter pilot/commando/commodore isn't likely to be able to constantly take time away from their duties to the Rebellion in order to go help out the Trader and Scoundrel with their newest scheme. Sure, it can happen once in a while, but 'odd couples' like this don't make for good permanently mixed groups in my opinion unless the EE characters are pretty much willing to give up their independence (like Han Solo and Lando who both pretty much sold out to the Alliance/New Republic and became AR characters that just happened to start with EE careers).

Isn’t that what would happen if you transfer your characters from an EotE campaign to an AoR one? I mean what are we even discussing here?

I’m a bit lost about what your point seems to be…

Also, this talk about whether something seems unrealistic to me really has no bearing. It is a game where adventourers fly around an enormous galaxy and interact with numerous sentient species ignoring all the problems that such interactions would pose entirely (illness, atmosphere being the same on many planets, temperatures all within the goldy locks approved area, etc.)

I am all for maintaining somewhat of a credible gaming environment but I hardly have the lay out of the entire Rebellion Army at hand when I play a game. I also cannot imagine that if I would make the transition to AoR it would turn out to be a game where my players would take up the role of rank and file troopers anyway, if anything they would be specialists on missions to scope out new locations for Rebel bases, do stealthy reconaissance or ambush missions, do investigations on imperial presence in the Outer Rim, try to steal plans to aid the Rebel cause, carry out sabotage, etc. That, to me, seems like interesting AoR games where there is room for the aforementioned type of party. Heck, I could just see our party making a smooth transition without any fuss whatsoever.

My current players could easily become rebels and would make for a great AoR party if you ask me.

That Smuggler Pilot turned fighter pilot would be just fine, the politico turned out to be quite at ease as a Quartermaster, our Scout would finally be able to make the step to becoming an actual Scout (spy), our mechanic would be just that and lo and behold the Bounty Hunter? Finally got her hands on all that amazing gear that she was unable to get her hands on before this time and Sharpshooter turned out to be just the ticket for her.

Okay, let's try this again. My point: The themes of the various games should be different enough to be noticeable and the differences may make adventures for a particular line unattractive for use in campaigns based upon a different line.

So basically what you are saying is: Games should be different under the different systems.

I think no one would argue that.

However -and I have noticed this in different threads when talking with you- it does seem that this was not your initial point. Your initial point was that mixed groups wouldn’t fare well under the different systems.

It seems that this new point is the point you came to during the discussion and now try to put forward as if it was your initial point. There seems to be a constant need „to be right” in your discussions that, to me, is a bit off putting.

No matter what, how or where I have never seen someone get into disagreements as much on these boards as you do, yet I have never seen you back up on your tracks and say „Hey guess what, that is actually a very good point you are making” you seem to think that is tantamount to „losing” or whatever. I am not just talking about our interactions here, but on a whole this is how it comes across to me.

I am not trying to be an a-hole here but I have always learned that it is better to just speak your mind when it comes to these things so we might further our interactions to a better level. I enjoy your posts and your input a lot actually so don’t take this as me telling you I dislike you. I don’t.

So basically what you are saying is: Games should be different under the different systems.

I think no one would argue that.

However -and I have noticed this in different threads when talking with you- it does seem that this was not your initial point. Your initial point was that mixed groups wouldn’t fare well under the different systems.

It seems that this new point is the point you came to during the discussion and now try to put forward as if it was your initial point. There seems to be a constant need „to be right” in your discussions that, to me, is a bit off putting.

No matter what, how or where I have never seen someone get into disagreements as much on these boards as you do, yet I have never seen you back up on your tracks and say „Hey guess what, that is actually a very good point you are making” you seem to think that is tantamount to „losing” or whatever. I am not just talking about our interactions here, but on a whole this is how it comes across to me.

I am not trying to be an a-hole here but I have always learned that it is better to just speak your mind when it comes to these things so we might further our interactions to a better level. I enjoy your posts and your input a lot actually so don’t take this as me telling you I dislike you. I don’t.

My first post on this topic was #124. My point made there has not changed. Perhaps you simply didn't catch my message.

Well, I guess my post either went unread or you wanted to proof my point for some reason...

Well, I guess my post either went unread or you wanted to proof my point for some reason...

Your post was read. I didn't agree with you, and then I referred you back to where this discussion began.

Yeah, you mean the post where you stated a different thing then you eventually did in the later stages of the discussion?

But, hey, never mind all that! Apparently I was right on the money when I called you out. Consider it dropped and I will think better of engaging you in a discussion from now on.

Shrug. Wait till they have adventures out for the other two games. I suspect they will be remarkably different in feel.

I believe that you're correct, and I hope that they do have different feels. Since they went through with the idea of separate but compatible game lines, I hope that they cover considerably different themes even though the mechanics are compatible. .That means that I do believe that most EE characters and FD characters, while mechanically compatible, will be unlikely to find the adventures for the other game lines very appropriate for them. Sure, your Jedi might call upon a smuggler to get him to the site of his mission, but that smuggler is likely to feel like a fish out of water (even though he's mechanically able to contribute). Likewise, if there's a mission that the smuggler and his crew are interested in on the way back, that Jedi might find little in it for him (even though, again, he's mechanically able to participate).

Dante, please explain how the above differs from what I most recently summarized for you?

Yeah, you mean the post where you stated a different thing then you eventually did in the later stages of the discussion?

But, hey, never mind all that! Apparently I was right on the money when I called you out. Consider it dropped and I will think better of engaging you in a discussion from now on.

You can declare you were "right on the money" but you haven't supported anything on the issue of me shifting my point. Instead, it appears to me that you're trying to insult me and undermine my posts by attacking me instead. So I ask you again, are you trying to be offensive?

The games can have different feels. It still doesn't convince me that a group can't be made up up of different characters with different motivations that work together. It is not like those motivations can not overlap or shift from adventure to adventure. And if they do not, it is no different than when a group tries to work at cross-purposes. This can be a source of good role=playing or a problem for the players, but it can be done. Just about any role-playing group out there comes up with disparate characters that come together for one reason or another. Sometimes the reason makes sense, other times it is nothing but a flimsy excuse, but either way it can work and has worked. Are you saying it doesn't or can't?

Well, for me it seems pretty obvious what the difference in tone and content of your seperate posts is so instead of letting me analyze it how about you go over it again? I already clearly indicated that I will no longer be having such discussions with you as they seem to be a one way street with a dead end.

I was also very clear in what I wrote about your way of discussing things on these boards and why I brought up, if you want to take that as an insult, a slight or offensive then you can do that. I already told you they weren't intended as such but I am not the judge of how you feel and perceive things.

Edit: I would like to add that you stating that I might be trying to "undermine" your posts goes a long way to show you why I have a problem with the way you carry yourself in discussions.

_{So again, you can't refute my point so you need to say something about the way I have discussions rather than to actually stick to the discussion. That's not really an appropriate way to have a discussion.}

Really dude? I am trying to actually be civil about it.

I am not engaging you in any more discussions because I like to see other people’s points and not feel like I am in a contest and with you it feels like that. You can keep trying to make me get back to the topic but I have been very, very clear about it; I will not. It is not a a question of „can’t” it is a question of „won’t”. If it makes it easier for you to let it go, then consider yourself the victor.

If you deem my way „not really an appropriate way to have a discussion” and I feel that having a discussion with you is tantamount to „driving into a one-way dead-end street” wouldn’t it make more sense to just stop it?