You ain't the only one.
Hello.
I am the noobiest of noobs.
But I like Star Wars.
Hope that, and a ton of reading I'm about to do, will be enough.
Welcome!
I posted an action for your character at the end of last round, in the new round you can go ahead and pick up the action.
Updates I/C tonight.
Welcome to the campaign. :)
Welcome!
How much more of this section do we have, it is beginning to drag.
I have been PMING with the new player he will be posting by Monday and then we can move forward.
Feel free to surrender at any time :)
Hoo boy, jumped into the deep end here.
A couple questions for clarification sake:
- I thought the light saber was still in my hand, and "drawing it" = "activating it" again?
- Hurting me causes me to drop my lightsaber?
- Do I roll anything to respond to the intimidation attempt? Is it just flat Will, or something else?
- Can Garret really keep a guaranteed crit (51 damage) in the barrel and change the target based on the situation?
- I thought Garret's readied action was to shoot at the skiff, or can he change that?
Sorry again for the questions. I'm a newbie to the system and trying to brush up on the rules. I'm googling when time allows.
Hoo boy, jumped into the deep end here.
A couple questions for clarification sake:
- I thought the light saber was still in my hand, and "drawing it" = "activating it" again?
- Hurting me causes me to drop my lightsaber?
- Do I roll anything to respond to the intimidation attempt? Is it just flat Will, or something else?
- Can Garret really keep a guaranteed crit (51 damage) in the barrel and change the target based on the situation?
- I thought Garret's readied action was to shoot at the skiff, or can he change that?
Sorry again for the questions. I'm a newbie to the system and trying to brush up on the rules. I'm googling when time allows.
Correct, the lightsaber was in your hand so it was not dropped, I noted that in my I/C response.
No it does not cause you to drop the lightsaber.
That is a good question, RAW you would not be able to but I am seriously considering having some sort of system for resisting. Both for skill checks and for Force powers. I donlt want the Jedi being able to dominate PvP as their Pluses will easily outstrip passive defenses. Now even the resistance rolls would be tough to succeed on but... there is something to be said for letting the dice decide that sort of thing PvP.
Yes, I am allowing players to keep previous rolls in the thread, if he had a Natural 1 he would have had to keep that as well on his Readied Action.
Fair point, let me check the rules.
And just to make sure I understand what system we're playing, what is the core game called and the expansions we're using?
Ready
Readying an action lets you prepare to take an action later, after your turn is over but before your next turn has begun.
You can ready an single standard action or ove action. To do so, specify the standard action or move you will take and the circumstances under which you will take it. Then, any time before your next turn, you may take the readied action in response to those circumstances (assuming they occur). Star Wars Saga Edition page 162.
Based on this I would think that Garrett you cannot take a Readied Action against the Droid, as the Transport DID move, you can use that roll to shoot it for a lot of damage!
Then at the top of the next Round you can Intimidate AJTD1 to not take an action and instead Comm the Transport to stop moving. Is a Droid subject to Intimidation though? I'll have to look that up!
And just to make sure I understand what system we're playing, what is the core game called and the expansions we're using?
Star Wars RPG - Saga Edition.
I did look up the intimidation part, and it seems like intimidation should work on droids because of their neuritics processors.
I did look up the intimidation part, and it seems like intimidation should work on droids because of their neuritics processors.
Yes, agreed.
This is the original quote of my readied action:
I asked the GM if refusing to stop the skiff would qualify as an overtly threatening action, to which I believe he replied yes. However, he said to wait to shoot until your action; in that action, you said you would move to re-activate your lightsaber. That is certainly overtly threatening (and more pressing to Garrett, too), so Garrett shoots you. That part makes sense to me, certainly. I misread on the lightsaber (I thought that when the GM was controlling the character he dropped it, not deactivated it), so that was my mistake. Garrett fired on you when he sees you go to reactivate it, then, but the action still triggers. That works for me, if it makes sense to other people.
When it comes to Intimidate, I'm all for allowing people to make rolls against it in general when it comes to PvP, the same with Force powers. However, I think that should be something for future fights, not this one. We've been rolling with using defenses as normal previously, which has certainly inconvenienced Garrett (I got thrown off the skiff) so I think it's fair that we keep it that way for now as it's now causing the Jedi party some grief. In the future, I do vote we work out an "opposed roll" system, though. I agree it should work on droids, or at least on droids with heuristic processors, since they're sentient and can actually feel something like fear. Your standard battle droid or something, maybe not so much.
Also, here's the link to Garrett's first Intimidation roll.
Oh, I thought this post over-rode your previous readied action. Since you aiming at the skiff at this moment, I thought you were going with this one. My bad.
I'll agree to the changing rules for the next PvP, its only fair.
So am I still able to reactivate my lightsaber if he attacked me? Wait, I need look up what conditions mean.
I see that Intimidate check on October 20, 2016. It took place when no one was playing the character.
However, Intimidate is a FULL ROUND action. See Page 144 in the Saga book. It would consume all of your effort in that Round.
Garrett you would need to Either Intimidate or set up a Readied Action to fire at the Transport last Round.
Of course, you go first this Round so there's that...
When it comes to Intimidate, I'm all for allowing people to make rolls against it in general when it comes to PvP, the same with Force powers.
However, I think that should be something for future fights, not this one. We've been rolling with using defenses as normal previously, which has certainly inconvenienced Garrett (I got thrown off the skiff) so I think it's fair that we keep it that way for now as it's now causing the Jedi party some grief. In the future, I do vote we work out an "opposed roll" system, though.
I agree it should work on droids, or at least on droids with heuristic processors, since they're sentient and can actually feel something like fear. Your standard battle droid or something, maybe not so much.
Also, here's the link to Garrett's first Intimidation roll.
Agreed, next fight we should have a system as the Jedi have had the benefit of rolling against passive defense so far!
I asked the GM if refusing to stop the skiff would qualify as an overtly threatening action, to which I believe he replied yes. However, he said to wait to shoot until your action; in that action, you said you would move to re-activate your lightsaber. That is certainly overtly threatening (and more pressing to Garrett, too), so Garrett shoots you.
That part makes sense to me, certainly. I misread on the lightsaber (I thought that when the GM was controlling the character he dropped it, not deactivated it), so that was my mistake. Garrett fired on you when he sees you go to reactivate it, then, but the action still triggers. That works for me, if it makes sense to other people.
Agreed, you would shoot AJTD1 or Intimidate him. I think that the Intimidate may have more impact as you can get him to back down without killing him, he is worthless as a hostage dead/deactivated!
It makes more sense that Garrett would shoot him at first, but given that I have a turn now, I will intimidate him. Also, given the circumstances GM, ignore my posted readied action in the Empire Gameplay thread (I deleted the post). If you want me to re-roll the Intimidate check, I can do that, or we can stick with my current roll. Also, you're correct on Garrett's actions at the top of the round.
We will use the original roll Garrett.
Gotcha.
Also, for our new player: Moving two steps down the condition track means you take a -2 on all d20 rolls, essentially. There are six steps; +0, -1, -2, -5, -10, and Incapacitated. You can spend three swift actions to move a step up the Condition track, and they can be spent across multiple rounds. Being Incapacitated renders you unconscious or dead, depending on the circumstances, although droids can spend a force point to deactivate when they would have been destroyed (if I remember correctly, anyway). Right now, you moved down two steps, so you'd be at -2.
You can Ready an action that is basically 'I shoot anything or anyone at all', instead of something a bit more specific? Not sure I like that sort of insanely broad allowance; typically, a Readied action is a specific or very narrow action, if/then style, a la 'If the speeder continues to go back, or swerves to hit me, I shoot it.' It isn't a general 360-degree-turret-version that's 'I shoot anyone attacking, or threatening, or coming from the base, or indicated by my teammates.' I can understand him shifting targets, from aiming at the skiff to aiming at the guy (droid, whatever) approaching him, but again if you're going to change the target of a Readied action, you should IMO have to re-roll - because you're changing targets. Pure defense is one thing - 'dodge if anyone shoots at me' is kosher, IMO. But if you're going to go balls-to-the-wall offense, it tends to need to be directed and, thus, specific, or at least very narrowly defined.
I'm not challenging the events, I'm just saying that this sort of open-ended Readied action is ... not any sort of thing I've allowed, would allow, or have seen allowed in a game before, and I'd rather prefer this sort of incredibly broad latitude was curtailed, even if it handicaps me.
In any case, moving past that. Just so I'm clear on events, Garrett was aiming his sniper rifle at the skiff, then turned and aimed it at AJTD1, and basically shot the 'droid in the chest at virtually point-blank range, right?
I agree it was rather broad in scope based on the description in the book but as the field of vision he had is so wide (zero obstructions in a wide open field) I allowed it.
Maybe the best policy is to announce a Readied Action. BUT not to roll UNLESS a triggering event takes place.
As a rule I tend to allow more actions than I restrict in my games so long as EVERYONE is treated equally. If the groups believe a more narrow interpretation of a Readied Action should be applied, I am fine with that.
Just to address the question Caleb, yes he shot AJTD1 though I am not sure 12 meters would be considered point blank range it's not to far away either :-)
By RAW, all you need to state is a qualifying condition for your action to trigger, so technically speaking it could be anything. However, as the GM said, considering the field of vision I'd have I felt that preparing to shoot at anyone who acts threatening was a fair course of action. Also, I wouldn't have expected to be able to shoot someone approaching from behind me or out of my vision (unless of course there was a Perception check that I succeeded on to notice them), so it was intended more as a deterrent from further hostile action than anything else. I play very fast and loose in my own games with readied actions, so to me this isn't anything new.
However, if we want to make readied actions more specific in the future, that's fine with me. I'm also up for not rolling until a triggering event occurs, if that helps.
Should I go ahead and post? Or wait till my turn?
Should I go ahead and post? Or wait till my turn?
You can post a speaking action out of turn as I allow it as a Free Action (whether the rules do or not).
What would be the point in not pre-rolling readied actions? Doing so saves a lot of time, as otherwise we have to stop and wait anytime a triggering condition occurs -- or worse, the triggering condition is overlooked (easier to do with no rolls attached) and the action is either lost or we have to "rewind" the round to deal with it.
Also, while I understand the frustration/lack of autonomy that comes with roll vs. defense rather than roll saving throw, that also saves a lot of time, especially in a PbP, and makes no difference statistically. In PbPs I run I almost always roll saves for the players, because waiting for the entire group to post rolls wastes a day at a minimum.
Just my two cents.
That is a good point on readied actions, actually. Regardless, I'll play it whatever way is best for people in the future. When it comes to the rolls vs. defenses, I'd be fine if the GM rolled for them as opposed to us rolling ourselves. It at least sort of helps make up for the fact that most Jedi can successfully Mind Trick themselves by about 2nd level by letting you potentially get a high roll.
@Errin
Well, my main worry about readied actions is player knowledge. In this most recent example, Garrett has a critical locked and loaded is kinda a guaranteed success to whatever he plans on attacking. In a reverse situation, Garret could ready an action and have a terrible roll, and those that see it would know that they could act without incident since his actions wouldn't be able to stop them.
I guess its mostly about the care to avoid people arguing about changing actions based on other's readied actions rolls.
But yeah, what you said makes sense and makes for a faster game.
As for the roll vs defense, I'm not too familiar with the power level of the mind affecting powers but it seems some concern was expressed there. And when it comes to dictating another player's actions, I feel that should be a bit more challenging than a normal npc.
Post actions folks so we can move on to the next scene :-)
I have been running games since 1989, this is without a doubt the toughest one I have run yet! :-)
Just for my personal enlightenment, can someone direct me to where in the Star Wars canon, whether that's movies, shows, books, comics, or whatever, that the Jedi Mind Trick is talked about as 'mind rape'? I'm not arguing or anything, I just want to know.
Just for my personal enlightenment, can someone direct me to where in the Star Wars canon, whether that's movies, shows, books, comics, or whatever, that the Jedi Mind Trick is talked about as 'mind rape'? I'm not arguing or anything, I just want to know.
I think that is more the characters [Errin's] personal attitude towards the Jedi and Force Users in general so not really a canon thing.
Folks, as this is getting heated we may just want to separate the tables and run them as stand alones where the DM controls the other groups action for each table.
Let me know if you all agree.
I certainly still want to run a game for each group but not together if you all feel the animosity has become too great.
Let me know!
It never comes up in the movies, but I do think a couple people liken it to that in the old EU. However, it's more or less exclusively in reference to when it's used by Sith or other Dark Side folks, less so for the Jedi. Like the GM said, I believe that was a character's personal opinion, not something that was an established "thing".
Just for my personal enlightenment, can someone direct me to where in the Star Wars canon, whether that's movies, shows, books, comics, or whatever, that the Jedi Mind Trick is talked about as 'mind rape'? I'm not arguing or anything, I just want to know.I think that is more the characters [Errin's] personal attitude towards the Jedi and Force Users in general so not really a canon thing.
Thanks for the opinion, but still hoping to see if the players can otherwise produce a canonical reference.
Errin's background (established when the campaign began) includes being terrorized by a mind-controlling force creature. Learning to defend against such attacks is the reason she's with the Empire in the first place. Seeing her companion controlled through the Force to act against his own free will does not engender warm and cuddly feelings.
DM: Do whatever you think is best. Honestly, Errin would have fired when Caleb continued advancing and gestured toward the skiff. Alternatively, she'd fire on Quen at the first hint he was using the Force (although would Force Persuasion work on Garrett)? There were enough posts between my readied action post and when I checked back in that the earlier opportunity appears to have been lost, but the Jedi group appears bent on pushing things. Errin is not inclined to back down, so unless they turn tail and withdraw she'd probably end up shooting someone. Up to you whether you want us offing each other.
There were OOC reasons that I wanted to finish that scene and fast forward both teams. So I was trying to come to a non-violent solution temporarily as I thought that would take less time, obviously, I was wrong in assuming that.
I ruled that Caleb stepping forward did NOT trigger the readied action as his step forward was not an "aggressive" step forward.
There is another reason I/C why the Transport stopped but that is neither here nor there at this point and for now will remain a mystery.
Based on the interactions of today, I don't think this is a viable PvP as the animosity seems to be between Players as opposed to Characters. No need for that to continue to escalate. Both tables can enjoy the same game without further interactions as separate Tables which I am more than willing to do assuming you all still want to see where this all goes! :-)
The Jedi group appears bent on pushing things. Errin is not inclined to back down, so unless they turn tail and withdraw she'd probably end up shooting someone. Up to you whether you want us offing each other.
Yeah I do not see them turning tail and running when your group shot at them first. Having shot CSA guards it is likely that they would see you as dangerous which is why they were hesitant to just let you all go.
Quen also failed a UtF roll which if successful MAY have changed his initial approach when he arrived, ah well, what can you do?
Honestly, I was really feeling like we'd moved PAST that point. I know I and Caleb had some arguments, but I at least felt like we'd settled that and moved on, and that our in-character back and forth was going well and didn't feel like anything was meant to be a targeted remark OOC or anything. Sure, our discussion IN character was pretty heated, but of course it was! We were just fighting each other like two minutes ago, we aren't going to be FRIENDS. I can see a realistic reason why Errin didn't fire on Caleb, mainly being that Garrett didn't seem worried; I'd assume they trust each other enough to know that he didn't think he was being threatened. That said, Garrett felt the quickest way to get out of this situation was to force the other person to back down, so I rolled Intimidate and beat Caleb's Will Defense. In my mind, that would have hopefully led to him putting away his lightsaber, at which point Garrett would have put his own weapon away and motioned for Errin to do the same, as I already stated in my Gameplay post. I don't blame them for being intent on pushing things, as it makes sense in character, and I don't think Errin is either. But still, that was the nature of the situation.
Quen decided to come in and try to threaten us (Perception roll or not, that statement was not meant to foster trust), at which point I then rolled Intimidate on him. I also mentioned what Errin had said over comms (as she had told me to do, actually) in order to discourage the use of Force powers and instead putting away their weapons. I didn't feel like any of the animosity up to that point was between players, to me it felt all IC. I wanted to expedite the process of us talking to each other, that's all.
Quen is the one continuing to cause problems. He continuously fails to understand his own abilities and complains that we don't follow rules while simultaneously being annoyed when I use the rules. He's been the only person I've noticed to make outright personal attacks from either party (and has done it consistently), which certainly makes this game less fun. For Christ's sake, we've been playing this game for how long and the guy hasn't even updated his character header? I would love to continue this as PvP honestly, but if he's going to keep acting like he is then I would rather not. I have no issues with the other Jedi players.
I would trying to get passed this PVP thing and not use skills I would have anyway. I was looking to end the fighting but you seem to want to win this over the jedi just because you seem to want to be able to beat the jedi. Your constant inability to let things go has cost us a player? So if your actively trying to end this game, which was fun before you threw your jedi are overpowered rant a while back then keep it up.More players will keep leaving just so you can have fun. Go for the gold.
And he didn't threaten he simply said that he had kept them from attacking you guys which he did. You like bravado, it seems until it is given back
Yeeeeaaah. I am thinking probably PvP is not really working any longer.
Let's just head to our respective tables (assuming all groups still want to play?) and resume those games individually.
Jedi Tion Cluster Gambit - Recruitment
Empire in Exile Tion Cluster Gambit - Gameplay
This will make the games move faster as well. Sorry that did not work out folks!
My apologies to the other Jedi players. I was really starting to have fun with you guys, but I guess we're not going to get to continue that. Now, you've got to continue the game with an obnoxious sack of s@$! filling in for a player; I can only wish you the best.
Ohh boy guys, I believe we can shut the thread down now...
Happy Gaming to All!
I'm surprised that with all the crYing he does that his vocabulary is as advanced as it is
Please, keep giving me posts for me to flag. I appreciate the ammunition.