The Gaming Den

Longes wrote:That table isn't in the beta PDF I have, so that's the first time I see it. "Stealing from the rich is okay" is pretty weird to me.

But overall, I don't think a morality system is needed at all in the Star Wars game. Falling to the dark side is a character ark that should happen if GM and player want to play it out, not because of the character actions. Obi-Wan is a general in a civil war, and Luke is a freaking terrorist, but they are not being tormented by the possibility of falling to the dark side. Okay, Luke is, but for different reasons. Yoda didn't fall to the dark side despite sitting in a cave in a swam actively being inactive for the last fifty years.
I think strict morality scale just gets in the way of swashbuckling adventures of space wizards and dastardly scoundrels.

At first I was like "Wait no what?" But I thought about it a bit and you know what? Yeah... you're right. I don't think you particularly need a morality system for force users. Because becoming a dark sider is a conscious choice. Not a "I kicked enough puppies and now I'm suddenly a dark sider" but a "I see the two paths and choose to take the lesser".

Now the dark side can stack the deck. Can offer to give you a little boost here or there. And the force dice kind of reflect that. Dark side pops up more often but on average has less pips per instance. And that's cool. And maybe the GM can sort of play your shadow to use Wraith terms if you are a force users to personify the "conflict".

The whole morality/conflict thing seems to be a jedi construct more than a "mechanic" like Humanity in Vampire anyway. They decide to be conscious of their actions and try to maintain objectivity because they believe this will help them resist the lure of the Dark Side, not because if they kick 12 puppies they suddenly become Palpatine.

It's not established that this willful consciousness of the Jedi actually works. In fact, you can argue that it doesn't work particularly well and that was part of the Jedi's big weakness.

Longes wrote:

Wiseman wrote:I didn't think mortis was the source of the force. I never got that implication from watching the episodes. The Ones were just really powerful force users.

Mortis is the origin of midichlorians. Midichlorians are the source of the Force. Ergo, Mortis is the birthplace of the Force.

Err... actually...
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Force_planet

TheFlatline wrote:

Longes wrote:That table isn't in the beta PDF I have, so that's the first time I see it. "Stealing from the rich is okay" is pretty weird to me.

But overall, I don't think a morality system is needed at all in the Star Wars game. Falling to the dark side is a character ark that should happen if GM and player want to play it out, not because of the character actions. Obi-Wan is a general in a civil war, and Luke is a freaking terrorist, but they are not being tormented by the possibility of falling to the dark side. Okay, Luke is, but for different reasons. Yoda didn't fall to the dark side despite sitting in a cave in a swam actively being inactive for the last fifty years.
I think strict morality scale just gets in the way of swashbuckling adventures of space wizards and dastardly scoundrels.

At first I was like "Wait no what?" But I thought about it a bit and you know what? Yeah... you're right. I don't think you particularly need a morality system for force users. Because becoming a dark sider is a conscious choice. Not a "I kicked enough puppies and now I'm suddenly a dark sider" but a "I see the two paths and choose to take the lesser".

Now the dark side can stack the deck. Can offer to give you a little boost here or there. And the force dice kind of reflect that. Dark side pops up more often but on average has less pips per instance. And that's cool. And maybe the GM can sort of play your shadow to use Wraith terms if you are a force users to personify the "conflict".

The whole morality/conflict thing seems to be a jedi construct more than a "mechanic" like Humanity in Vampire anyway. They decide to be conscious of their actions and try to maintain objectivity because they believe this will help them resist the lure of the Dark Side, not because if they kick 12 puppies they suddenly become Palpatine.

It's not established that this willful consciousness of the Jedi actually works. In fact, you can argue that it doesn't work particularly well and that was part of the Jedi's big weakness.

Really, a morality system, like any mechanic, should be built towards encouraging the kind of things you want players to do in the game. If you want awesome lightsaber duels and space dogfights, a morality system that punishes you for doing these things is a terrible idea. Instead, the morality system should reward those sorts of things, like you get bonuses for seeking out evil and defeating it.

I don't see the point of morality granted bonuses for being a PC. I thought that was what experience is for.

Great, so there's a different planet that the midichlorians come from. This is ALSO dumb. I was happier not knowing that. Sigh.

Hadanelith wrote:Great, so there's a different planet that the midichlorians come from. This is ALSO dumb. I was happier not knowing that. Sigh.

Yeah, this is like when I learned from Firefly that Inara's syringe was intended to be rape revenge serum. Of all the options, to have gone with the stupidest.

Wiseman wrote:

Longes wrote:

Wiseman wrote:I didn't think mortis was the source of the force. I never got that implication from watching the episodes. The Ones were just really powerful force users.

Mortis is the origin of midichlorians. Midichlorians are the source of the Force. Ergo, Mortis is the birthplace of the Force.

Err... actually...
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Force_planet

Oh. I thought those two were the same. I haven't actually watched the cartoon.

TheFlatline wrote:

Longes wrote:That table isn't in the beta PDF I have, so that's the first time I see it. "Stealing from the rich is okay" is pretty weird to me.

But overall, I don't think a morality system is needed at all in the Star Wars game. Falling to the dark side is a character ark that should happen if GM and player want to play it out, not because of the character actions. Obi-Wan is a general in a civil war, and Luke is a freaking terrorist, but they are not being tormented by the possibility of falling to the dark side. Okay, Luke is, but for different reasons. Yoda didn't fall to the dark side despite sitting in a cave in a swam actively being inactive for the last fifty years.
I think strict morality scale just gets in the way of swashbuckling adventures of space wizards and dastardly scoundrels.

At first I was like "Wait no what?" But I thought about it a bit and you know what? Yeah... you're right. I don't think you particularly need a morality system for force users. Because becoming a dark sider is a conscious choice. Not a "I kicked enough puppies and now I'm suddenly a dark sider" but a "I see the two paths and choose to take the lesser".

Now the dark side can stack the deck. Can offer to give you a little boost here or there. And the force dice kind of reflect that. Dark side pops up more often but on average has less pips per instance. And that's cool. And maybe the GM can sort of play your shadow to use Wraith terms if you are a force users to personify the "conflict".

The whole morality/conflict thing seems to be a jedi construct more than a "mechanic" like Humanity in Vampire anyway. They decide to be conscious of their actions and try to maintain objectivity because they believe this will help them resist the lure of the Dark Side, not because if they kick 12 puppies they suddenly become Palpatine.

It's not established that this willful consciousness of the Jedi actually works. In fact, you can argue that it doesn't work particularly well and that was part of the Jedi's big weakness.

My reasoning was a bit different. Let's look at the force users (from the ones I remember) who had to struggle with the Force.

• Luke in the original trilogy has a problem once - when Darth Vader is taunting him about Leia, and Luke gives into anger to strike down his dad. Luke doesn't feel bad about killing millions of people on board the Death Star. Luke's Dark Side moment is a very personal conclusion of his character arc and involves his deep personal feelings.
  
  Anakin is being manipulated by Palpatin. His love to Padme is being exploited, and his ambition is being fueled. He feels bad about slaughtering the sand people, but once again, his fall to the Dark Side is ultimately a result of his personal conflict regarding visions of Padme's death. Palpatine offers a solution, Anakin accepts, and is then brainwashed until nothing but anger remains.
  
  Revan and Malak commit genocide on Mandalorians, but become Sith after being caught by the Emperor and brainwashed.
  
  Juhani's 'fall' is so minor and uninteresting that it's not even worth discussing.
  
  Bastila falls after being brainwashed by Malak, but was always on the edge due to inflated self-importance.
  
  Darth Bane falls out of touch with the Dark Side when he first kills a person with the Force. He realizes that he killed his own father with the Force, and cuts off himself from the Force.
  
  Atris fell because she's being brainwashed by the Sith holocrones and believes herself to be the last true jedi.
  
  Kreya fell because jedi exiled her after Revan's fall, and she felt betrayed.

My point being - the jedi in the movies and games don't fall because they ate ten kittens. Their fall is a result of personal conflict or external influence (or both), and a morality system, any morality system, doesn't really simulate that. Jedi falling to the dark side should be kept in the realm of the MTP, where it belongs. That way morality wouldn't get in the way of swashbuckling adventures in space, and would allow for personalized character arcs if the players are interested in them.

Force and Destiny has to suck. It lists a dozen writers and three editors. That's way too much, if I learned anyhting from Frank Trollmann nerdrages. Plus, one has to select the career and specialization, but both appear in the book before the skill and talents chapters. How could one know what to chose? That's terrible layout. One can't expect readers to flip through the book. Don't forget the morality rules, which put you on the whim of the GM. Terribad. Really.

Fucks wrote:Force and Destiny has to suck. It lists a dozen writers and three editors. That's way too much, if I learned anyhting from Frank Trollmann nerdrages. Plus, one has to select the career and specialization, but both appear in the book before the skill and talents chapters. How could one know what to chose? That's terrible layout. One can't expect readers to flip through the book. Don't forget the morality rules, which put you on the whim of the GM. Terribad. Really.

1/10, would not troll again.

What amuses me is not the fact that Longes and co. don't like GM fiat. What amuses me if that they genuinelly find that games with any dose of it is automatically an objectively bad game that shouldn't exist in the first place. Again, it's as surreal as a comedy movie fan expressing the opinion that horror movies are objectively bad and should't exist in the first place.

In other words: "I don't like X, so X is objectively bad and should't exist in the first place".

A good argument could be made that, in the SW movies, both the Jedi and the Sith had become corrupted. The Jedi had become increasingly rigid, dogmatic, and without compassion; meanwhile, the Sith were disregarding the actual nature of the Force and cutting corners, trying to force the universe to conform to illicit whims. (Not least by trying to attain immortality and constantly sacrificing apprentices to maintain the master.) The method that was supposed to be flexible was ossifying, and the method that was supposed to be rigorous was becoming self-indulgent and lax.

Only the destruction of all codified practitioners could permit the Force to return to balance.

silva wrote:What amuses me is not the fact that Longes and co. don't like GM fiat. What amuses me if that they genuinelly find that games with any dose of it is automatically an objectively bad game that shouldn't exist in the first place. Again, it's as surreal as a comedy movie fan expressing the opinion that horror movies are objectively bad and should't exist in the first place.

In other words: "I don't like X, so X is objectively bad and should't exist in the first place".

You just don't get it.

We don't inherently mind GM Fiat and MTP, we hate *paying* for it because playing make believe defaults down to Fiat & MTP and that shit is free yo. We're specifically paying to get *away* from that. If I pay 40-60 dollars and the book spends page after page telling me to just pull shit out of my ass on whim it's a demonstrably *bad* product because it fails to uphold the implicit contract of any RPG rule set: And that's to get away from Fiat & MTP. Some of it is going to be inevitable but the more that a rules writer cops out to Fiat & MTP the lazier the author and the shittier the rule set.

Does Fucks have any positive argument for his position at all, or is he just being a twat shitter? I didn't notice him having anything to contribute at all.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:Does Fucks have any positive argument for his position at all, or is he just being a twat shitter? I didn't notice him having anything to contribute at all.

-Username17

I dunno. I don't really read what he writes most of the time so if he's trolling here he doesn't make much of an impact.

I didn't notice any positive arguments for the rejection and "oh my god this gqme sucks big time" position at all.

Fucks wrote:I didn't notice any positive arguments for the rejection and "oh my god this gqme sucks big time" position at all.

Because you haven't been reading

All I've read was "Oh noes! GM fiat! This game sucks!!!!!1111111"

erik wrote:

Hadanelith wrote:Great, so there's a different planet that the midichlorians come from. This is ALSO dumb. I was happier not knowing that. Sigh.

Yeah, this is like when I learned from Firefly that Inara's syringe was intended to be rape revenge serum. Of all the options, to have gone with the stupidest.

Maybe it was supposed to be empowering and all but I have a hard time respecting any scheme that involves you asserting your power by letting people rape you.

Silent Wayfarer wrote:

erik wrote:

Hadanelith wrote:Great, so there's a different planet that the midichlorians come from. This is ALSO dumb. I was happier not knowing that. Sigh.

Yeah, this is like when I learned from Firefly that Inara's syringe was intended to be rape revenge serum. Of all the options, to have gone with the stupidest.

Maybe it was supposed to be empowering and all but I have a hard time respecting any scheme that involves you asserting your power by letting people rape you.

True story, the exact same sentence applies to bearworld.

We're talking about a morality system in which you do stuff and then post hoc the MC decides based on vague criteria whether to apply longterm penalties to your character for violating your character's moral system as he understands it. So we're talking about the alignment system from Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, something which was bad and correctly identified as bad by the gaming community during the Carter administration.

Fucks, you fail. You fail hard. You are coming out in favor of a side of the argument that was lost before you were even born. You might as well be defending Demi-Human Level Limits or railing against THAC0 for being too progressive compared to arbitrary to-hit tables.

This isn't a complex 21st century game theory discussion about when it is good or bad for NPCs to use different rules from player characters. This is you defending an idea that was bad and well recognized as bad in nineteen seventy eight. We are talking about an argument that was had before the invention of the walkman or the snowboard. You are clinging to pre-information age bad arguments and it is ridiculous and embarrassing. It's like you're trying to have the debate over whether the Ayatollah is going to bring freedom to the Persian people or whether the Soviet Union is going to be able to pacify Afghanistan by invading it.

-Username17

Did any of you read the F&D core rule book?

We'll answer that when you tell us how to turn off your fanboy switch.

Fucks wrote:I didn't notice any positive arguments for the rejection and "oh my god this gqme sucks big time" position at all.

[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
This is trolling, even by the lax standards of TGDMB. Just a few posts above the one I quoted,Flatline lays out his ( and others, I assume) arguments against GM Fiat. You responded with ROTFL emoticon.

So he explained his "does not like" position, you laughed at it, then claimed nobody was presenting an argument for the "does not like" position. You may be okay with GM Fiat, and you may not like his argument, but you can't claim he didn't lay out a coherent reason for not liking it.

When you do that, you are trolling.

Quit that shit.
[/TGFBS]