Jediphile

Yeah, I had pretty much the same idea, except mine was in the jedi temple on Coruscant during a history class, which, if you choose light side for the Exile, turns out to be taught by the Handmaiden... I really want to see the Exile's companions teach jedi. Atton would train mental resistances, Bao-Dur how to make lightsabers, etc. But only if the Exile is set to light side, of course. If not, these should all be replaced by generic NPCs. These could speak "non-human", which doesn't require different voice-acting - quarrens, twi-leks, ithorians, duros, rodians, sullustans, maybe even mon calamari and zabrak. These could all replace the Exile's companions, if dark sided. But if light sided I want them there as per Kreia's revelantion that were 'the lost jedi'.

Though I don't have a problem with that, I very doubt it will happen. To expect the devs (whoever they will be) to essentially write two games and sell them for the price of one seems unrealistic to me. Unfortunately.

Personally I don't have the problem. Nobody in my group wants to play a rogue at the moment, so why force them? There is an uncursed-mintaur-turned-human fighter, a male human ranger (who could give Legolas a run for his money with his bow...), a female human wizardess, and a male dwarven fighter/cleric. All heavily geared toward combat, the dwarf and non-minotaur focused on melee, the ranger on ranged, and the wizard on... well, artillery :D I don't prohibit thieves, and we have had them at times, but the people who have played them have long since left, so I'm not going to force anything. Besides, I can add thieves as NPCs when needed, and do so on occasion. Besides, the ranger can do several thief-like things like hiding in shadows and moving silently, and since he's level 15, he's very good at it (especially with Dexterity 19 on top of it...). That said, I do take cheap shots at the lack of a thief at times - I'm sure a thief would have been really handy when the entire group was captured by an evil wizard and thrown in the dungeons of the ranger's arch enemy (yes, Lancer, they were captured by Bargle, who gave them to the Black Eagle...)

Wonderful "Shrubbery"... Why do I suddenly think, "We are the Knights Who Say: NI!!" :D Yes, this is a recurring problem, and it's actually another argument against fixed classes - in a skill based system, the group members could have spread out to cover the thieves' skill, but in D&D you must have a thief. It was a little better in 2e Player Option and 3e, which pretty much repeats the same rules, since fighters and others could at least take some thieves' skill, but still not all of them. But since not all are covered, a thief is needed, and the role is forced on somebody who doesn't really want it, as was the case for you. An excellent example of shoddy game design, actually... Sure this part does belong in the "warstories" topic I began? :D

Dagobah isn't Yoda's homeplanet - it's just were he went into exile to hide from the Sith while the Empire ruled the galaxy. IIRC, the Thrawn trilogy suggests he went there because the 'place strong with the dark side' would hide his own light side presence, and so he would remain undetected by the Sith there (same for Obi-Wan on Tatooine, btw). Yoda's (and Vandar's) species remains a mystery, as does their homeworld.

Welcome. Total agreement on my part, though we do need them in the game. Yes. My own suggestion was to make them "semi-PCs", which means that they become optional main characters once you meet them. They wouldn't appear until rather far into the game, which makes their high-levels of the previous games approachable. Yes, they would lose some levels, but bringing them into the game is always going to be a problem, since people played them in all sorts of different ways with various class-options and so. So people will have to rebuild them in some way, if they are to appear at all. I find that to be the lesser of two evils. Maybe a comment about whether the were consulars, guardians, or sentinels should be available early in the game, when you will presumably set their gender and alignment. Sure, they might lose levels, particularly the Exile, but if they're both around level 16+ when you meet them, it really won't be a major problem. Seems a lot of us want to begin with a young padawan training under a master on Coruscant... It was my suggestion too, and I was scarcely the only one. And we all seem to hate the idea of yet another amnesic jedi... Yeah, we really need Coruscant. I don't agree with Dantooine, though. It's probably the planet I want to see least of all (except, perhaps, Tatooine). We've now seen it twice in as many games, and it's a ruin anyway... I'd much rather see Alderaan, Myrkr, and Sleheyron. And I want to see the Sith worlds Khar Delba/Khar Shian and Ziost. Definitely. There has been much speculation about a new graphics engine, but to be honest I really don't care - I just want the plot to be solid and the game to be finished...

Agreed. KotOR without jedi/sith as main character isn't really KotOR. I'd love a game where you'd play a non-force user. Seems *everything* in Star Wars is about the Jedi/Sith struggle. It could be interesting to explore something that just isn't about that. For example, they could set the game in the time between Episode III and IV - there are no jedi and the two positions of allowed Sith are already filled, so you cannot be a force user (well Force Adept might be possible). Instead the game is about the harshness of the Empire and how normal people sufffer beneath, a bit like the plots of the X-Wing games. It's like everyone's forgot that there are non-jedi in Star Wars since the prequel trilogy began.

Well, I can't do that in 2e, even with Player Option rules. It's just not possible. I can alter stuff, I can change the rules, but get to where I have the level of options for characterization I want? Nope, not possible. It would be easier to write a new system... Or just play something else.

Yes, that is the focus of the debate, but I don't see why it cannot be discussed. My position (and I think several here agree with that) is that experience levels and fixed classes are bad, because they enforce a structure that does not exist in real life. Sure, you could say that RPGs are not realistic in any event, but *are* representative of reality in some way - we're not talking about Road Runner the RPG, after all. We're talking about RPGs were we play characters who are not quite so distanced from reality that we that we cannot empathize with them. If there is dissent about something in an RPG, then the first argument is usually about how something would or could never happen in the real world. Of course there is no magic in the real world, but people can become good swordsman or crack shots, so evaluating something from a realistic assessment is not entirely irrelevant (except for magic, psionics, force-powers, laser guns, starships, etc.). Most times when players have argued against AD&D rules in my campaign, it has been on the basis of something being totally unrealistic. And despite what anyone might think about that, it is a valid objection, because unconving rules do not serve to suspend disbelief, and that is essential in role-playing - if you cannot put yourself in the position of your character, then your ability to play him is compromised - he becomes a cartoonish character whose situation and opinions cannot be accepted as compelling or relevant in any way, and so you won't care much what happens to him. That is poison to the player-character relationship. And fixed classes, experience levels, and hit points does not help here because they are so unrealistic - it distances the characters from reality and turns them into cartoonish figures. They become like characters in fantasy movies or the like. Now, in an epic/heroic game like AD&D, you could say that's not so bad, except for one important aspect - when you watch Luke Skywalker or Captain Picard or Aragorn fight the bad guys, you know they're not going to die - they will not be killed in a fight and they will defeat the villains. One-way drama can work that way, because you're exploring a narrative that you're already distanced from - you look at what Luke or Picard or whomever are doing, but you do not participate, and there is no danger beyond what the writer/director/whoever can evoke with his plot and characterization. Those people are fairly good at what they do, but they also do have the handy tools of lighting, impressive visual effects and atmospheric music at their disposal. Computer games are much the same way. KotOR games are horribly fixed for archetype, but you get a compelling story with all the trimmings of a movie in return. You do not, however, get many genuine options to choose from in the game - there is one set plotline, and you must follow that whether you like it or not. It's basically like a movie where you get to participate in some elements of a scene, but you don't get to rewrite it, and you don't get to progress in the plot until you've completed the scene the way you're supposed to. Tabletop RPG is completely different - here you have *all* the choices, and they are all genuine. You don't have the flash or atmospheric music of the movies, however, so if the experience is to be compelling, then it must come from interaction of the plot (controlled by the GM) and the character (controlled by the player). And your hero can certainly die in the confrontation with the evil Sith or Black Eagle Baron or whomever - you can't just reload and play the scene again if things go against you (much to the chagrin of many a role-player, but I digress )! So when you enter a fight, there is something at stake, because your character could lose his life or similar. Only how is losing your character going to mean anything, if your he is not the character you had in mind, because the rules did not allow you to make what you thought of? And how are you to suspend your disbelief when you know that your 17th-level warrior with a full plate +5 and a sword +4 could easily kill the entire village, or even the army of thousand orcs you just noticed down the road? It's all good and fine to say that the warrior shouldn't kill all the helpless villagers, but if it's what the player wants to do because someone stole from him or insulted him, then it *is* interfering with the player-character relationship if the GM tries to prevent a player from doing so. Isn't it more relevant that the rules should preclude such nonsense in and of themselves? I don't mind that a genuine swordmaster like Conan can knock down a few orcs without too much trouble, but even Conan is supposed to be threatened, if he is all alone against 10 orcs or similar. Sure, he might win the fight, but the threat is there. For even a 9th-level D&D fighter, it is not there.

SJ have released lots of rulebooks, yes, but their way of doing it is completely different from WotC. WotC released a game that was very basic and rigid with little or no diversity for players to explore, then slowly introduce that diversity in the gazillion of prestige classes, optional classes, new feats, new spells, etc., that they introduce in their many rulebooks. SJ does it the other way around - they create a core that has about all the skills and traits you could want, then they build on it. There may come new skills and traits in subsequent books, but if that happens, it is not because they 'deliberately held it back for the purpose of more profit down the line'. At least, it is not my impression of SJ, though it is of WotC. Besides, after several revisions early on, core GURPS remained more or less consistent for 20 years before they finally did 4th edition. And 4th edition isn't even that different. If anything, it just tries to put all those wayward skills and traits into fewer books, so that the critique of many rulebooks will be less. Yes, the books are pricey ($40 a piece), but you get a full game with almost endless options by getting just two books.

Yes, but that's a personal preference, not an objective appraisal. You pretty much say it yourself, when you admit that 2e is probably not the best, and perhaps not as good as 3e. There will always be a personal preference for certain games among certain, but that is usually because of the nostalgia and experiences they've had with those games. I have most of my best RPG experiences from 2e (as noted in another topic) simply because that was what we played when: 1. I was introduced to role-playing games 2. When we had the most fun playing RPGs. That impression lasts, so if someone voices criticism of that system, I will rise to defend it. But when I do so, it's out of those fond memories, which really originated from my friends and my GM and not from the crummy rules at all. Fortunately, however, I have played enough different RPGs to have fun with several systems, and so I don't automatically associate fun with a specific system. Over the years I've had fun playing OD&D (Basic D&D), 1e, 2e, 2e Player Option, 3e (though not so much), d20 Star Wars, Call of Cthulhu (5th edition), Shadowrun, Exalted, Vampire, LUG Star Trek, GURPS, and probably a host of others that I forget... Playing so many games has granted me the virtue of fun with many games, and so I know that the fun did not derive from one system so much as it did from the people I gamed with. This brings me to the conclusion that no system, however basic and simple, is the source of the fun on the basis of its accessibility - it is and always will be the people you game with who make or break the game. The system can be as brilliant as you want it to be - the game will fail if the players don't get along. Vice versa, the system can be as horribly flawed as possible - the game will be entertaining and fun if the people involved get along socially. For me role-playing is really just an excuse to hang out with friends, have fun, and swap stories - we probably spend more time talking about our lives than about the game. But the game is the focal point - without it we might not get around to meeting at all, and without it we might not have any fun that evening at all, life being often unfair and depressing... All this has left me in a position of judging an RPG- book not by its cover, nor by its association with fun gaming sessions, but instead on the hard value of its contents, because I can separate the fun of the game from the quality of the writing. And this evalution tells me that d20/3e is a poor RPG system, that classes and experience levels are outdated concepts, and that you don't need fixed archetypes to have fun with the game... among other things.

No - not having a life helps :D

Precisely. If someone wants to do a KotOR-like game where the main character is a non-force-user, then fine - go ahead. Heck, if it's any good, I would play. But it would not be KotOR, so it shouldn't be named as such.

So you do mean the Force powers the Exile should have had after being cut off from the Force for several years. Got it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You can take it either way you want it. From a pure rule-based point of view, he should have had a few force powers from the beginning. Whether they let those be optional, as they really should be rulewise, or whether they want to dictate them on the basis of powers returning from his 'reconnection' to the force makes little difference to me.

Oh, you mean the Force powers the Exile should have had after being cut off from the Force for several years? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, I mean those force powers a 1st level jedi gets as per the rules. Although, f they had supplied them under the pretense of powers he spontaneously "remembered", then that I would have bought that. Sophistry, yes, but I'd still buy that excuse.

He chose not to, right. But he didn't deal with the matter at all - he suppressed it. I see Nihilus as a sort of "force neurosis" that grew from that suppression.

Yes, but don't forget that he cut those ties to separate himself from the darkness that his experiences and choices on Malachor V had bestowed upon him. My point is that this darkness or dark side is Nihilus in some form. Still doesn't explain why this took a decade to happen. The Exile was plenty around jedi after his events on Malachor V, yet he didn't gain any force powers then. Why? And why didn't he form force bonds during his long seclusion? Surely there are force sensitive people pretty much wherever he went... Maybe not jedi or sith, but then force adepts of some kind. He didn't bond with them. He only bonded when returning to the Republic. As for Kreia, it has been discussed and mused before just where she jumped into the whole plot. It seems Revan visited her before going to the unknown regions, but he left the responsibility of maintaining things in the republic (in the LS version) with T3. T3 locked the navi-computer, and T3 sought out the Exile, when things looked grim for the republic, so where did Kreia suddenly come from? I doubt she went with Revan and T3 to the unknown regions and then returned with T3, but she's on the Ebon Hawk, when T3 repairs it at the beginning of the game. I find it quite possible that Kreia realized the whole situation from her association with Nihilus and wanted revenge. After all, Nihilus was the one to cast her out, so what does she do? She finds his "lost half" and manipulates him to a confrontation with Nihilus. If she knows that the Exile and Nihilus are the same, then she knows that whatever the result, it will be the end for Nihilus - if he kills his real self, then he ceases to be, and yet he cannot drain himself either. Therefore the Exile is the perfect key to her revenge against both Nihilus and the force itself. Not far from what I suggested, I think. In effect, the Exile denied the dark side within himself, so instead it "fled" to the dying body of another jedi, and that jedi would be someone close to the Exile, since that would make the connection stronger. The Exile's dark side then used that dying body as a host and revived it through the force. But it cannot make life where none exists, so it can only prolong the inevitable and not so much live as avoid dying. So the resulting being is closer to some form of undead and can only continue to exist by draining the life of others. It is probably not aware of this itself. When Nihilus drains Jedi, it's probably in the attempt to obtain genuine life for itself, futile as the attempt might be. It knows nothing of its true self or of the Exile. It only begins to sense that 'other self' when the Exile returns. And isn't it odd that all those Sith hunt the Exile as 'the last Jedi', when there are clearly plenty of other jedi still around (Vrook, Zez-Kai-Ell, Atris (well, after a fashion...), Vash (not yet dead at the time), Kavar, and likely several others too). That's probably because Nihilus senses the Exile much clearer than anyone else for good reason.

Yes, but only so that d20 will permeate the market and push out the competition. Once that happens, they'll control the industry, and then those licences can disappear fairly quickly, since it will no longer be in the company's interest to allow them. Besides, WotC sells the core mechanic separately together with FR stuff. FR has always been a seller, and nothing sells like rulebooks. Of course, people also need some adventures to play with, but that is a notoriously dangerous market (as TSR discovered...). So why should WotC take that risk if they can get others to do it for them? Yes, there is method to the madness...

Right now? Music from "Batman Begins" by Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard. Pretty good, too. Usually enjoy movie music the most, though that may have to do with attempts to find atmospheric background for RPG sessions... By the same evaluation, the music for "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl", "Edward Scissorhands", "Sleepy Hollow", and "Conan the Barbarian" is also pretty good. The music for the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy is also excellent, but does not work well as background - it's just too good and noticeable somehow. That said, I've recently also been listening a lot to the music from "Star Wars, Episode III: Revenge of the Sith" - John Williams rules!

My point exactly. Do we want that practice in the RPG market? I don't, but WotC is working towards it.

No, but he was still cheated out of the force powers he should have had from the beginning. If those had become available later, then fine. Heck, I'd even accept it they were dictated by the game when made available, but to just cut them out? Ach! I want to begin as a level 1 jedi and begin making my lightsaber when I reach level 2.

I understand that, but naturally I must argue from my own position and own point of view. After all, I have no other frame of reference to argue from when the topic regards what I like and don't like. And naturally I don't want to think about what others want - I want the game to be whatever I like to play. Don't we all?

To be perfectly honest, I want to play a jedi with full powers all the way through in KotOR3 - I hated that they let the Exile begin as a jedi, but didn't give him the force powers the rules give him from the beginning :angry:

Wow! Still pretty nice. Btw, I wouldn't call that cheating per se, since the game allows it. Personally I had a hard time defeating him even with loads of grenades as a level 5 scout!