Lupus

Re: Re-imagining the Star Wars universe. Exactly! That's my reasoning in a nutshell. The two concepts are simply impossible to reconcile with any degree of satisfaction. I've seen the concept most notably in the Jedi Apprentice books (for younger readers, chronicling Obi-Wan's apprenticeship to Qui-Gonn - actually a good read, overall). But I've run into the concept elsewhere, too. It's certainly become common enough that it's made it into things like the d20 SW Jedi sourcebook. Just an example of something that authors obviously didn't really think through well enough.

Re: Re-imagining the Star Wars universe. Now, as far as me re-writing the SW universe, I'd take the films as the one and only canon source. From there, we have tiers of sources - the Lucasarts material being top-grade, followed by the spinoff literature. Games like X-Wing come last, but I'd put KotOR in with the literature. Basically, as a raw assumption, everything except the films is gone. Then I go through the EU, adding in what I like, altering most of it, tossing out the rest. Insanely powerful dark jedi who can destabilise suns with their mind? Gone. (SW isn't superhero-world!) Cloning and usign the Force to transfer 'essence' to another body? Gone. (Again, SW isn't comic-book superheroes. This is a telepath trick.) Random resurrections? Gone. (In SW, if you're dead, you're dead. No revolving-door heaven here.) Old Sith history? Keep. (But altered, mainly for removal of Thanos-level bad guys like Exar Kun. Or, more accurately, removal of powers. Keep him, but power him down.) So stuff like that. Also, get rid of the annoying EU habit of coming up with back-stories for EVERYTHING and why it's intimately tied in to Galactic history. Like the ancient temples the Rebels were based out of in Ep 4 (on Yavin IV). HOW many stories ahve they been pivotal in? Come on, can't they just be temples from some forgotten prehistoric species that since died out, with no connection ever to Galactic affairs? Why does EVERY alien in the Cantina have to have a name, history, and connection with the Galactic struggle? Can't some of them just be drunken bums? And what is UP with all of this glorification of the bad guys? Like all the Boba Fett 'not a bad guy, just has his contracts. Really a good guy deep down after all.' While warm and fuzzy and all, it also bites. I was so glad when all of that spinoff stuff got tossed out by film 2. Yay! Anyway, that's my EU rant, letting off some steam while (possibly) adding to the discussion. ;

Re: Re-imagining the Star Wars universe. The EU certainly didn't get the genre right (mostly - there were exceptions). But there were additional problems: mostly, elements they added that simply DIDN'T MAKE SENSE. One of the first things I altered when planning a Jedi game: the baby-snatching thing. For those who aren't familiar with this, it's the practice of Jedi to basically demand to take force-sensitive children away from their parents, because they'd be dangerous if they weren't instructed in the way of the Force. Basically, the same as you'd see in B5-verse; replace Psi-Corp with the Jedi. I think it was meant to add a 'grey' edge to the Jedi. However, it doesn't make sense. Because you have this other philosophy, the 'too old to begin the training' thing. Now, how can you justify that? Well, it's because if someone is too old, they have trouble losing their old pre-conceptions of the universe - learning the Jedi way is all about seeing the universe in a different light, and having too much experience (even 12 years) is perhaps enough to be locked into a single worldview. Here's the kicker: if trained in the Jedi way, these people are more likely to turn darkside, thus becoming dangerous. So we have two competing philosophies: 1) must take children to train them, otherwise they will be dangerous. 2) must not train children, otherwise they will become dangerous. But left alone, they shouldn't turn out too bad. They cannot co-exist. One or the other is true, but not both. Since 'too old to begin the training' has basis in film, but 'jedi baby-snatchers' does not, my choice was simple. (I don't like the recent trend of 'greying up' the Jedi, anyway. Most of it's gratuitous iconoclasm. Sure, it's not realistic to have an all-good, all-the-time organisation, but this is fantasy! Come on!) (Not to mention that the Jedi order we see in the films is ENTIRELY all-good, all-the-time. They're certainly losing their way. I just don't feel the need to injecti Psi-Corp Aesthetic to make 'em edgier.)

Re: Universal Driver? Exactly. Hell, in Champions, I don't even use TFs or WFs. Everyone can use anything. (I give some penalties for outlandish vehicles, but they go away with a bit of practice, with no points expenditure.)

Re: Star Wars "Science" Yeah, the run on the death star was pretty funny. But each run was led by one of the commanders. Luke didn't get in first because he wasn't senior enough. (And by the time he did, chain of command was screwed up enough that people who'd been flying longer than he had were listening to him as a commander!) It's possible to read that as red-shirt scenarios, yah. I interpret it differently, I guess. Attack on the shield generator, too - big guys go in first. Han's right there along with his troops. Really, just about any time anything dangerous is being done, there's a main character or at least high-ranking person going along with the attempt, or doing it solo. Ben turns the tractor beam off himself (telling the others to stay put where it's safe). The jedi in I and II are constantly putting themselves in harm's way. The people rescuing Han are all his friends. Luke is the first one to do an attack run on the AT-ATs (of course, his gunner dies, but that does mean he was putting himself in the line of fire). Heroes, in Star Wars, are active. They do things. They don't sit back - that's for high command. The heroes aren't high command, they're field personnel, leading from the front. They don't tell others to do anything they aren't willing to do themselves.

Re: Star Wars "Science" Hmm. Are these really Star Wars rules? Particularly the redshirt ones - I seem to remember the heroes largely charging in in the front lines of any assault. I certainly don't remember any 'redshirt phenomenon.' While the flunkies did certainly take horrible casualties at certain points (say, Battle of Yavin - was that 80% casualties?) they aren't tossed away. And it's almost always the commanders who go into the dangerous situations first (even among the Imperials - Vader almost always, General Veers on Hoth, various admirals leading Star Destroyer formations). I'd say that heroic action (such as leading from the front) from those in charge is Star Wars genre. (Except for those with essentially desk/co-ordination jobs, like the high commanders.) Different kind of shield, prolly. And different species.

Re: Star Wars "Science" Yup. I still think it's important to understand where the science puts things, though, before you deviate from it. So I love sites like the Star Wars Technical Commentaries, but I'd never use its stuff in a game. Too sci-fi-y, not fantasy-y enough. (Similarly, I hate the cop-out excuse of 'it's magic' in fantasy. Why is there a forest next to a desert? 'It's magic!' That's crap. Better to say 'in history, this happend and that happened, thus there is a forest next to a desert. It still invokes magic, but it's an actual explanation, not just an excuse. So I appreciate this thread - let's point out the Star Wars/Scifi disconnects, so we at least know they're disconnects, so we can then move on from there.

Re: Star Wars "Science" Definitely a problem in scifi... but is this a typical Star Wars thing? I can't think of a single case of 'programming', except where R2's hacking a system. Everyone else crosses wires and stuff. Hardware hacking, I guess. That's another to add to my list - droids are the only human interface devices. Now, this actually makes some sense. From what I remember, there's some sort of universal lingo, which all species learn to facilitate communication. Not all members of all species learn it, however. There are also aliens out there who simply cannot speak it, but may still understand it (Chewbacca). Not everyone understands Chewbacca, either - Han seems to parse his howls as speech, but Luke can't understand him. Plenty of other species, too - I'd bet that most of those who never speak Basic (as the games call the language) are simply incapable of doing so. What's a bit more odd is droids, even those intended to help humans (say, R2) not speaking English... hmm. Certainly, that's something to add to the list. Droids seem to speak different languages depending on their function, and you need protocol droids to translate. Owen needs a droid to talk to the moisture vaporators? Why can't he just install a voice box? He can't, because they're just not designed like that!

Re: Star Wars "Science" Alternately (re breathing masks in vacuum), a space slug has an atmosphere inside it, even without gravity or seals holding it in. Other things: mostly to do with available tech. -Blasters, but no missiles (other than things meant to attack ground targets/capital ships - at least until Episode 2). -Guards everywhere, but little in the way of security cameras, even in highly-secured areas (say, the security booth watching the Falcon in the original film, or outside the bunker in RotJ) -Obviously, they've killed the lawyers - crazy, unsafe, no-barrier lifts and walkways EVERYWHERE. And if it sounds like I'm complaining about any of that, I surely am not. Star Wars is SO not sci-fi it's crazy, but I love it for it. I'm planning a SW game in the background (one of about fifteen projects on backburner), and I tell my players not to extrapolate from current tech in order to figure out what's available in Star Wars. I tell them to think of the 1930s: anything available then probably has an allegory in SW. So you have fighters, naval ships (and aircraft carriers), communications around the globe (galaxy); you have machineguns on fighters, but the only rocket-fired weapons are, well, rockets - intended for attacking ground targets, or bombs/torpedoes to be fired at capital ships. Ship sensors, too, are only about as accurate as WW2 radar, with the Falcon undetectable after it passes the Avenger's bridge in Empire (IE, it disappears from scope, and instead of saying 'well, it must have stopped', they figure it just vanished somewhere - it points to the sensors not being entirely reliable, and based on non-visual spectrum. So again, no cameras). And the child-unsafe military architecture is just neat.

Re: Horror Hero rant Great Minds Think Alike?

Re: Power level for God I was very sad when I found that Gozer wasn't a real god.

Re: Power level for God Ask yourself why you want stats. If it's for fun, then just make 'em up as seems fun. If you want to know what the god can get away with doing, then you need to figure that out for yourself (perhaps with the help of stats, but you need to put in work yourself). So: how powerful do you want him? Do you want him to be able to appear in the physical world? If so, should he be able to defeat entire armies on his own? Are there any creatures in the world that could potentially harm him (big dragons, etc)? Is he totally invulnerable, or can he be whittled down to size (massive BODY, 75% DR)? Is he primarily inspirational - massive PRE, and characteristics/CSLs usable by other (x10,000)? Is his power boosted by sacrifices (AID array, OAF Priest)? Is he human scale, or can he grow to massive size and devour enemies en masse (see Mahabarata for inspiration)? Ultimately, are they invincible, or can they be beaten? Can mortals rise to such lofty heights that they can fight gods? Can the mightiest dragons in the world? Is 'god' merely a term for mighty spirits who receive worship, or is there something truly setting them apart? Answer these questions, then you can stat your gods.

Re: Stargate Hero I've been thinking about Replicators myself. Thinking the following, to be precise: give 'em either a vulnerability to shotguns and area-effect weapons (like grenades), or a resistance to simple bullet weapons (the spread helps destroy 'em faster). I like the former approach, since giving them a resistance to bullets makes it seem like bullets are the wrong way to go about it. Just that they seem to be able to take a few rifle bullets before falling apart, but one decent shotgun blast and they're in pieces. As for their regeneration.... I was toying with giving them two massive BODY aid powers, both bought with trigger. I read somewhere that they can be blown apart twice and come back together, but the third time they're down for good. The double-trigger thing should simulate this... but sometimes, in the series, they can be taken down faster if they get REALLY hammered. I guess that'd be simulated by putting them so far below zero that the aid can't help 'em. (Oh, and if they survive, then before the Aid runs out their natural regeneration etc would have properly fixed the injuries.

Re: Question for the legal eagles re federal arrest warrants Oh, I'd do the same thing in that world. Just call it One of My Turns. But when they're in the cell, it's all Goodbye Blue Sky.

Re: Question for the legal eagles re federal arrest warrants

Re: Question about "DANGER SENSE DODGING" No, you can't dodge it... but the blast may or may not be at your feet, with or without DFC. Even worse is AoE: 1 hex. I understand why the rules are in there - it's game balance. DCV isn't going to protect you against everything. But it still feels incredibly gamey to me.

Re: Question about "DANGER SENSE DODGING"

Re: Question about "DANGER SENSE DODGING" Yeah. I've long had a problem with aiming at a hex being DCV 3, regardless of how fast the person in that hex is moving. Just because the miniatures are static doesn't mean the characters are.

Re: Question about "DANGER SENSE DODGING"

Re: more gun bunny goodness. I've seen it before, as the F2000. They possibly got the letter wrong on the forum. It's FN's new assault rifle. Edit: alternately, the P2000 is the civilian F2000.

Re: The Black Paladin is vanquished....

Re: Kill Bill Go-Go's a case of YMMV, frankly. I liked her, others didn't, let's move back to discussing the Bride.

Re: Kill Bill Yeah, that's why I suggested a weapon break maneuver. It's too easy, in game stats, to have an attack that always happens, instead of happening infrequently. When trying to simulate a genre film, this is, to me, a problem. Removing 'real weapon' and giving it chunky damage and her a weapon break maneuver (or some targetting levels) should suffice. (In regards to the other discussion, on Go-go... you guys are on drugs. She rocked. She was cute, and pretty, and INSANE. I totally bought her as a threat, especially with that weapon of hers. That's my opinion, anyway.

Re: Kill Bill

Re: Flash: Inner ear/ Sense of Gravity/ Sense of Balence Hmm. Of course, why not follow through? If you flash the eyes, the person's blind. That's a major combat/movement penalty. So if you flash sense of balance/touch/etc, the effect would also be a major combat/movement penalty. Why wolud this innately be out of line? The problem is coming up with numbers... we have them provided for blindness, but not vertigo. I'm just tossing this into the air. I agree that this may lead to silliness that should be countered by reasoning from effects, but I think it should be explored.