Jediphile

This should have been addressed in the story. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Really? I tend not to think so. For all we know, Carth already did this in KotOR1, or maybe hair doesn't gray with age if subjected to certain treatments in the Star Wars universe. I mean, the technology is likely to be there... I'd count this amont the details that are so small that they can just be ignored in the plot.

Noooooooooooo! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Don't worry - that almost certainly won't happen, since the Tales of the Jedi comic book is barred from coming close to a computerized version. I hear that Bastila's character was originally intended to be Nomi or her daughter (I forget which), but that it couldn't be allowed, since there were ownership issues. Heck, I even hear that Nomi was not allowed to even be mentioned, and only was by Jolee due to a slip-up... So that would make the chances of such a game seem rather unlikely.

And that's just silly. If someone tries to hit you with a sharp object, then you're in danger and could lose your life if you don't defend yourself. Of course you don't meet Boromir, but the situation is still just as relevant, isn't it? I mean, if my character was mortally wounded, I'd prefer to have the option to making the heroic death-speech along the lines of Boromir before dying, but d20 rules won't allow that or even that my character could be killed by four arrows. Sure, the DM can enforce stuff for dramatic purposes, but that's again avoiding the issue of what the rules say (EDIT: And reserved for NPCs), and they actually don't allow for a leve 15 warrior to be killed by four arrows. So if I'm a 15 level warrior in D&D, then I don't have to worry about that one orc (or even group of orcs, as it was i the novel) point a bow at me, because I know there is no way he can kill me - I can just stand there and say, "Do your worst - see if I care". You're missing my point. You're talking about whether I must play d20. I've alredy said that I don't have to (for now). But what I'm talking about is whether d20 is a flawed and badly designed system at its core. That's the central issue of this topic, not whether you and I or whomever loves or loathes it. For now, yes, but as I have demonstrated, WotC intend to make d20 the industry-wide standard for all RPG over time. They have said so. You can go to their site and see this for yourself, if you don't believe me. Just go here and read the d20 FAQ

You may presume me to be male. And not gay, in spite of what XboxSithLord might think... Actually my current campaign is an old D&D campaign (11 years and counting...), which is very difficult to separate from those rules. So for now we're using 2e Player Option rules heavily modified by my 40+ pages of house rules and certain 3e ideas. We use 3e to-hit and Armor Class rules, for example, not that it makes much difference (really just a matter of how you crunch the numbers and nothing more). One of my players admits that he sort of likes 3e, but also that it is a totally differnt game that has nothing to do with earlier incarnations of D&D. But I intend to end my campaign soon and then embrace something else. I've been playing some Exalted (World of Darkness system) as a player, which is pretty good. However, my D&D campaign is ending, and after that I plan to try some GURPS or 5th edition Call of Cthulhu (infinitely much better than the crappy d20 version of Cthulhu IMHO).

Oh, I'm not criticizing the system. It's just that I hate the cutesy surface so much that I cannot move past that. Clearly I'm not the target audience. But yes, it's probably well designed beneath the surface. It was designed by the people who designed Magic, after all, and whatever you think of that, it was a brilliant concept. Don't even joke about it. Seriously

Oh, don't worry about me - I know how to make the players see reason. People tend to learn after being torn to bits by 'those puny orcs'... " But that still doesn't address the problem of why I should pay for rules that suport such silly ideas. Like it or not - and it seems neither of us do - d20/3e rules do support the idea that four characters of level 15+ can kill an army of 1000 standard orcs without too much trouble. I can adjust the rules for that, sure, but why do the rules allow such nonsense in the first place? And how about the Boromir-dilemma? Boromir was killed by - what? - four arrows in the movie? No way that could happen in D&D for an experienced warrior like him. That's just basic stupidity. I don't. Or rather, I try not to. But if I want to play KotOR, then I must play d20 (in computerized form). If I want to play Star Wars RPG - d20. Want to play new Cthulhu adventures - d20. Want to play D&D - d20. It has permeated the market and is smothering anything else. If d20 was just an option, then it wouldn't matter. I'd still hate it, but then I could just ignore it. Considering WotC's statements of marketing strategy as I have cited from their d20 FAQ, that will not be possible, however, because they want d20 to become the industry standard for *all* RPGs, which means spoonfeeding to people like me forcibly, whether we like it or not.

Or how about this: Handmaiden: "You've got to take me seriously!" Exile (male): "I'd love to take you... Seriously!"

Just don't like it - way too childish and silly for my tastes. GAAAHH!!! What a horrible idea No, there isn't, at least not to my knowlege. And Please don't do that again :D Quite. The problem is that d20 sourcebooks don't lend themselves well to other systems, whereas GURPS sourcebooks could be used in World of Darkness or most other games without too much trouble. The insistence on fixed classes and levels in d20, however, make sourcebooks practically useless to other games. The various guides and online databases provide more useful info for a GURPS Star Wars game than the d20 Star Wars sourcebooks would

Has anyone tries this yet? Kreia: "No, Brianna - *I* am your mother!!" Handmaiden: "NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!" :D

They are extreme examples, but the fact that rules support them lead to general trouble when playing, since it puts the players in hack-n-slash mode. No, they might not slay every child and helpless bystander, but if they see an umber hulk, they will attack. Why? Because it's worth xp. See a troll? Attack. See a wolf? Attack. Now, if the troll was actually an NPC I wanted to the players to meet and interact with, then I'll have to interfere with their role-playing options, since they'll already have gone into kill-mode by the time they see it. If they discover the troll some distance away and see it coming toward them, then chances are they'll toss arrows and fireballs first and worry about questions later... or never. Sure, they might have impaled my plot, but they won't know that, and should still get their xps, since trolls are dangerous. And my only means of control is to rail-road them into submission by giving out information that they really shouldn't have. Heck, I've even see PCs killed by their ambitions when hordes of orcs were swarming them, yet they remained blindly confident that their four PCs could take on an army of 1000 orcs simply because they had knowledge of the rules (i.e., "orcs are puny and cannot harm us") and had XP-signs in their eyes. Now, that's just bad role-playing. That will happen in any event, but I certainly don't need the rules to support that. I want rules where I can safely argue, without having players contradicting me and pointing to pages in the book, that they can kill just as many or as few orcs as they like, because I really won't care one whit by the time I give out XP. In fact, I might penalize them for monster-slashing on the basis that it's bad role-playing. D20 rules don't support that idea.

True enough, but I don't see why that necessitates fixed classes. You can just as easily have two many warriors or all wizards in a D&D group. The problem isn't that diversity is lost in skill based games, but that players forget to communicate about functions they serve in the group. That will always be a problem in any game. You're lucky - I constantly feel that way in any d20 game I find myself in. Well, the problem really isn't D&D 3e and d20 as such. It's an incredibly simplistic badly designed system IMHO, but then I'm not going to be playing Pokemon either... No, the problem is that while I can completely ignore Pokemon because I don't like the content, I don't have that option with d20, which seeks to permeate the entire RPG industry. In short, d20 is *everywhere* and you can't escape it! Star Wars is now d20, so I'll have to play it if I like Star Wars RPG. Heck, even Call of Cthulhu is d20 now (with levels ), so there is no escape. But what really annoys me is WotC's strategy for d20. The following is from the d20 FAQ: The company has decided it is possible that consumers can be educated to understand the problems of system over-proliferation, and for those consumers to apply pressure to publishers to use standardized systems. This is where I really get hopping mad at WotC :angry: They're basically saying that we're all sheep who can be manipulated. We're the customers, so how about showing some goddam respect!! Later they write this: The company believes that this is a market where diversity is more harmful than beneficial. The competition in the tabletop RPG category will (if the OGL/d20 strategy is successful) shift from producing competitive RPG systems to producing competitive RPG products that share a common system. This is quite elistist, but setting aside the notion that "diversity is harmful", there might be some truth to the idea that many systems might cloud the market, while a standard could make it much more accesible to the consumers. The problem, however, is that if there is to be an industry-wide standard, then d20 is about the last system that should be considered for that standard for the reasons of flawed the design and illogical rules that I have given above.

I don't know Morrowind at all. Besides, this is the PnP board, but even so, having a skill based system does not negate the idea of a profession at all, it's just a question of looking at which skills the character is best at rather than which fixed class he belongs to. If the character's skills in history and lore are high, then he's a scholar. If they're high in swordplay, he's a warrior. If they're high with a rifle (or a bow or crossbow in fantasy) or other ranged weapon, then he's a marksman. Not a problem at all. I hate NWN, but that's a whole different bowl of soup, so I'll drop commenting on that.

Sure I can overrule the rules as a GM. But if I do that, the players will argue the rules, and I can't say I blame them, since they're just following the only basis they have to fall back on. Besides, if I'm to ignore d20 rules every two seconds, then why bother buying them in the first place? And if these examples demonstrate flawed rules in d20, then doesn't that indicate poor design by the writers? That would also beg the question of why I should spend money on it.

Yes, Exar Kun. But he remains trapped until the Jedi Academy trilogy of novels, so I'd much rather give Yavin IV a wide berth than risk messing with continuity.

Of course not, but the question is whether those places are essential to that goal. I have proposed Kashyyyk myself before, but others said that we had already done plenty there in KotOR1, and I've come around to that way of thinking. If there is to be a jungle planet, then I'd much rather have Myrkr. As for Tatooine, it's just been done to death. It seems no Star Wars movie (except ESB, which was the best IMO, though that might not be the reason...) can live without going to Tatooine, and I've really seen it enough times now. Though there is Star Wars history written all over worlds like Tatooine and Yavin IV, I don't think we need to visit them. Star Wars keeps inventing new planets, so it doesn't seem so important. Especially not if Alderaan and Coruscant are in KotOR3, as I hope they are. And as I've said before, if the point of putting Yavin IV in there is to establish ties to Naga Sadow, then I'd much rather visit his hidden base on Khar Shian in the Sith Empire.

Just so it's clear from the beginning - I hate d20. So if you love it, then this topic probably isn't for you, since I will argue why I feel that way. When D&D 3e was announced several years ago, I was really looking forward to it. 2e had been out for over a decade without much change, and it's age was really showing. I was looking forward to throwing out all my own house rules in favor of a better system. But 3e/d20 failed completely to innovate in any way, at least in my humble opinion. Here's why: - Fixed classes - Simplistic skills with more focus on relevant ability scores over building skills and tied to specific classes - experience levels - Use of experience points in d20 Now, there are other problems, but these are the main ones. Though multiclasses are handled better than in earlier D&D, the strict adherence to fixed classes and levels makes the game look incredibly antiquated and outdated. The idea of fixed classes is so old and inflexible that it should have been abandoned completely a decade ago. In fact, the 2e Player Option: Skills & Powers book went some way toward doing that in D&D by making class abilities of other classes available across the board in many cases. It didn't remove classes, since it couldn't - it was still based on a system that demanded fixed classes - but it did try to lower the rigidity of the system by allowing more options. 3e/d20 did the opposite, however - it demanded that you embrace one archetype and built that only. I hear people arguing that you can "mix and match" to your heart's content with the use of the multi-class system, but it is a fact that the rules do not allow that without forcing the player to pay heavily in the character progress potential - you'll have to earn far more experience points to keep up with your fellow players who fully embraced the few archetypes defined by the game. For example, why can't my wizard learn Innuendo as a class skill and why isn't swimming a class skill for a cleric? And why is the Concentration skill based on Constitution, when Wisdom is described as the measure of willpower in the game? There really aren't any good or logical reasons for that, which is something that hurts the game, since it doesn't serve to suspend the disbelief while playing. In D&D you also still have hit points, and they've now become worse than ever. The problem with hit points is that they defy any sort of logic when taken to extremes as in D&D. A D&D Boromir could never have been killed by a few arrows, which is ridiculous. If a warrior in leather armor falls off a mountain and plummets for a mile before being impaled on sharp rocks, then he's dead - period! Yet in D&D the rules claim that this depends on how much damage he took and whether he had enough HPs to withstand it. The Star Wars d20 RPG thankfully doesn't have hit points, but it still has most of the other problems of d20. Ability Scores still influence skills way too much, and the armor class system remains laughable. It also retains the silly experience system. As Marcus once said in Fallout 2, "Wow! I feel as if I've passed some arbitrary experience value and gained more power!"... " Experience points also have the problem of how they're gained in d20. Most things add to the total, including killing people, so by that notion the game supports the principle of going into full slayer-mode, where you kill eveything and everybody you meet - it all adds up, so you goodbye old man begging in the street and little girl screaming for mommy... I realize that all good role-playing is based on the noble and moral principle of grave-robbing (in that all good gear you get in RPG is usually taken from the cold dead hands of your slain enemies), but this is going a bit far... KotOR games suffer from the same flawed logic that is completely out of touch with any sort of convincing gaming experience in any way. The fixed classes also hurt Star Wars and games like KotOR. I'm sick of hearing about how Yoda is a counselor, so he can't force jump, or Obi-Wan must be a guardian since he uses a blue lightsaber... Luke switched from a blue lightsaber to a green one between Episode V and VI, so I guess he turned from being a guardian to being a counselor... Experience levels also lead to stupid conclusions that contradict the flow of good storytelling and drama. Since the to-hit probability is based on levels, that makes low-level characters inferior to high-level ones, yet in Episode I we see Darth Maul kill Qui-Gon, a jedi master, in single combat, only to then see Darth Maul be killed by Qui-Gon's "inferior" apprentice... This leads to all sorts of inane speculation about how Obi-Wan was a guardian and so had better hit-probability as per his class than Qui-Gon who was a counselor (used green lightsaber). Others then respond that, oh no, Qui-Gon was also a guardian, or he couldn't have done force jumps as we clearly saw him do, or that though he was a counselor, he still had better hit probability, since he would have been level 13+ or whatever, while Obi-Wan would only have been around level 7, where he is declared a knight... Personally I'd much rather throw the rigid classes to the winds and embrace a skill based system like that of GURPS. Here there are no classes and instead you use points to buy whatever skills or abilities you want, except some require that you fulfil certain conditions, before you can get them (a bit similar to feats tree in d20, but much more evolved). That way your characters can have whatever skills and abilities, and we won't have to deal with annoying Jedi guardians/consulars or whatever, since force jump will be available to any jedi. I don't see much evidence of a class division among the jedi in the movies. Sure, Yoda is more of a force user than Mace or Obi-Wan, but that should be due to characterization, not dictated by archetype. You'd still get experience points, but they would be few, be awared only at the end of gaming sessions (or in KotOR games when you return to the Ebon Hawk or leave a planet), and they will be awared for success and choices in the game, not for killing innocent bystanders or staying around to get a higher body count of Sith soldiers.

He told Yoda and Mace that the army had been ordered ten years ago (in Episode II, which puts it around the same time as Episode I), but that he (Obi-Wan, that is) thought he had been killed before that. Yes it is, but in the case I wonder why Sifo Dyas would order the creation of a clone army in the first place? Besides, Mace tells Obi-Wan that whoever ordered the creation of the army did so without the consent of the Jedi Council (and certainly without their knowledge), so I doubt it was a genuine jedi who did it... If Sifo-Dyas did it, then it makes more sense if he was Sith posing as a Jedi.

Palpy got a girl? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> he had to if he had a son!, and like it said he was also gettin' jiggy with the Imperial Head of Intelligence, if you catch my drift, lucky son of a................. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> He really dosnt look that spry does he <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, but to quote Henry Kissinger: "Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac."

Not exactly. The original movie (to be specific: Episode IV - "A New Hope") was intended to stand alone and not have any sequels. ESB and ROTJ only became relevant when the success was obvious. Lucas actually used as much as his oomph as he could in the first movie, though he left loose ends to exploit in case he wanted to continue - Darth Vader's survival and escape, for example. Obviously he left much material unused - you can do only so much in a two hour flick. But either way, that's why we get yet another Death Star in ROTJ, since the Death Star was always intended for the big finale, only he had already used it.

I tend to agree. Still, the idea of a KotOR prequel based on the Mandalorian Wars just might work. That said, I'm usually wary of prequels, since they frequently screw up continuity. Lucas managed to avoid that through prequel trilogy, but I'm much more doutbful about whoever would write such a game - KotOR2 already adds enough "differences" in history compared to KotOR1 to raise more than a few eyebrows...

True, but not unmanageable. Time has passed between KotOR1 and KotOR3, and pretty much anything could have happened to Revan in the Sith-infested unknown regions during those years. Personally I see him having turned dark sided again. The same could be true for the Exile. I want him to have followed Revan, only to have Revan then turn him to the dark side as well and become the new Darth Nihilus. That serves all the possibilities of gender and alignment in the previous games.

Don't expect me to lose any sleep over it While your maturity is demonstrated by enforcing a "my way or the high way" approach towards anyone else - if they don't capitulate and submit to your opinion 1000%, then they are the enemy who must naturally embrace the opposite of whatever you think and can therefore be attacked with impunity. The fact that you have repeated this approach toward ShadowPaladin when he dared to disagree with you speaks volumes Yes, life is so hard and unfair on you... [sound in the background of the world's smallest violin playing just for metadigital...]

Well, I actually want to see all our NPCs during the game, though they shouldn't all be NPCs. I'd like to have some of them be "temporary" NPCs in that they join the party when you're in a particular planet, but won't follow you further - once you reach the loading ramp to the Ebon Hawk (or whichever means of transportation...) the NPC just goes, "Sorry, but I guess it's time for me to get back to my work here - have a nice flight". That way you can have lots of NPCs during the game without cluttering up the group. I also want to see Carth and Canderous in the game, but probably not as NPCs at any point - there's just no need to, and cameo appearances can serve just fine. Bastila should definitely be a permanent NPC, though - she is instrumental to finding Revan. Heck, I'd even want to see Jolee as well as Mission and Zaalbar again. And all of the Exile's companions should make cameo appearances as well (if LS).

Never screamed at you or anyone else, though I did call for a ruling by the moderator. Besides, you seem to be in the minority, as both ShadowPaladin and I seem to be equally "defeatist" while nobody has voiced support for your side. Doesn't make you wrong, of course, but it might prompt you to at least reconsider your position unless you're completely biased and unwilling to reexamine your postulate. I try never to enter a discussion without first accepting that I might be wrong, though others will have to convince me. You don't seem to allow for that possibility. You'll excuse, but I don't like having words put in my mouth and being quoted for things I didn't say. Judging from your comments to ShadowPaladin, you don't seem to either (not that I think he did, but still...), so you can scarcely fault me for it unless you're a hypocrit. Besides, you turned the discussion into being about me instead of being about the topic when you accused me of being an apologist and other things. That's not arguing the point. Which should tell you something...