Jediphile

Nope. That profile image is a left over from the demo played at E3. Meaning it's as much deleted content as Mira being found on Peragus. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, I know. Sorry for giving the wrong impression, it's just that I would have liked Atris' redemption to mean something in the game itself. But I know you guys can't restore her, because the option was cut so early during development that there is nothing much for the team to restore. Besides, as the plot unfolds, you couldn't have Atris in there anyway, since the Exile either plays the rest of the game with mixed companions (Visas and Mandalore on the Ravager) or alone (on Malachor V) from that point on. So the point is moot in any event.

This is the Gary Gygax argument: "You have to play the game as I wrote it, or you're not playing AD&D at all". It may technically be true, even for an RPG, but then who cares? Definitely a problem right there, yes. I may fudge die rolls and rules as a GM at times, but there is no way I can let my players know it. You know the situation, when you say, "I rolled a 20!" behind your GM's screen and then quickly hide the die so the players can't see... Or you can have outcome C occur whether the players choose option A or option B. This is also known as "Heads - you lose. Tails - I win." As long as the GM does this for the sake of flow and fun in the game, and is fair about it - oh, and doesn't let the players find out! That's very important! - I don't see this as very problematic. After all, there are times when I fudge the dice in the PCs' favor too. To me it's like the directing in a film - as long as the director's hand is unseen, I'm happy, even if I know I'm being manipulated. But if I see where the director is *telling* me what I'm supposed to think, then I'll be incensed! And I'll stop watching! How dares he tell me what I'm supposed to think and do!!! :angry: Just the same in an RPG - as long as the GM's manipulative hand is invisible, it's all fine. But if it becomes obvious, then there's trouble!

Dude, it was SHOWN in the REPEAT over TWENTY TIMES <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It was, and that is how I reached my conclusion. And I see I'm not the only one here who thinks so either...

Yeah... it was weak by the ref, though - that was a fairly cheap penalty to say the least, and Iaquinta got exactly what he was trying for. I think Italy might still have won, because I don't see the Aussies keeping up that pressure for another 30 minutes, but even so, I'm not likely to remember that game ending in a way that was all fair and okay... Still, Australia has won a lot of respect. Anyone who says they're not good enough after this world cup should have his head examined. On a good day they'll beat anybody IMHO.

Farewell to the socceroos - it's been a pleasure...

So that makes the foul okay?!? He was taken out of the game, so your argument seems woefully biased to me. Yes, but I can't blame Figo for it - it was pure acting too, when that dutch player tried to convince the ref that Figo had made a headbutt. And when the ref is then so weak as to fall for it, yet won't pull the red card that should then follow, then I really can't fault Figo for overdoing it later. Besides, why aren't you blaming Bouhlarouz for being an idiot? Of course this is likely to happen if he decides to put an elbow right in Figo's face. Bouhlarouz deserves the Mickey Mouse award of the month for being a completely brainless fool. Yes, that's so unbiased - the defense rests... I didn't see it as a headbutt. To me it just like he pushed his head close and lightly touched Van Bommel. Stupid, yes, but scarcely a headbutt. Von Bommel deserves an Oscar for it, though, and the ref deserves to be sent home for falling for it. As I said, if the ref thinks Figo made a headbutt, then he should sent Figo off. Instead it's just 'oh, I didn't see it, but you seem to have done something, so here's a yellow card'. What a pathetic ref! But seriously, I do think Portugal deserved the win. They were no better or worse than Holland when came to fouls or play, but they could at least score. Maniche's goal was a true beauty, whereas Holland was woefully ineffective in that department. I went away thinking the right team won... and that football lost...

Probably should give it all, but here's the basics (as per the beginning of Episode VI): Male human noble 4/dark side devotee 6/sith lord 10 Str 9 Dex 11 Con 12 Int 18 Wis 16 Cha 16 Like I said, doesn't do him justice at all...

If you've given her a two-handed weapon (such as a double-lightsaber) then that explains it, since d20 rules state that you get a 50% increase to your damage modifier when using a two-handed weapon. Thus, +4 would become a +6. But your attack bonus does not change.

Nope. Atris is missing the chunk of dialogue for her Malachor confrontation with the Exile., which is essential. I can imagine that one day someone can implement it using dialogue from the confrontation on Telos but not yet. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Which is fine by me - it never made much sense that Atris would assume all of Kreia's goals just because she turned to the dark side. I suppose that's why Obsidian dropped the idea before they got to do all the proper files for her as Darth Traya. Still, I would have liked to see the redeemed Atris join the Exile's crew, which was also planned at one point.

But that would void the whole principle of the fall of the jedi in the previous games. I feel the point of K2 was that the true Sith would come now that the jedi order is all but destroyed and the republic is weak. That's the war I want to fight in K3.

Well, we'll see if the conspiracy theory holds up when England plays against Portugal next saturday... and loses

What does that have to do with the point of my last post about d20 having no firmly established foundation to base the rules on? Besides, you can scream optional till you're blue in the face - my experience still tells me that most players won't see it that way, and will still refer to "OMG - cool new uber-skills/classes kicks butts in Song and Silence" or whatever. Surely you realise this - it's not that difficult I'll see your "sheesh" and raise you a "gee, come on already!"

Yes and no. I think you're seeing it a tad too black-and-white for my taste. If the player feels that his actions and, particularly, his choices are void, because the GM won't let them influence the outcome of the game, then yes - then the game has a problem. However, I don't agree that you therefore need to take it to the extreme of always off following the rules blindly, even if they lead you over a cliff. The old D&D basic rules - you know, from the red box - had one rule overriding everything: Be fair! I've always played the game by that rule. Sure, there are times when I want stuff to happen in the game regardless of what the players want, but as a GM, I also don't want to have the players suffer under a rule that's just unfair, especially if it kills them all off without at least giving them a fighting chance. Rulebending, fudging die-rolls, and rail-roading is no more evil or "wrong" than min-maxing is. They are all good or bad depending on how you use them, and I maintain that a good GM knows when to ignore or overrule the rules. Maintaining a good flow of the game is far more important to me than the hollow satisfaction of knowing that I "followed the rules".

The d20 core rulebook for Star Wars does have stats for him. And no, they don't do him justice either

That doesn't change the fact that it's annoying for me to have any flow to the rules spread out over all the various supplements and magazines instead of including it all in the core, where I can let players make their characters on an equal footing. I can do that in GURPS, because the core foundation is firmly established. I can't do it in d20.

Nah, only two with red cards, and unless I'm mistaken (which is certainly possible - I don't know the Portuguese that well...) it wasn't any of their really major players. Besides, England's game was awful today - I was extremely disappointed by their match against Ecuador, which didn't even try to score after Beckham's goal. Even weakened, I still think Portugal is too much for England. My money's on Portugal in that match.

Anyone watching Holland against Portugal right now? I swear, it's more of a wrestling match than soccer, as reflected by the large amounts of cards - now three players sent off... and counting!

Sheesh, what a hopeless generalization to make simply on the basis that I don't want to listen to players moaning about stuff like this. For the record, my players are not whiny, and I stick by my guns, but then players have left my table for just that reason. That you infer this paints me as spineless and/or my players as whiny is pure sophistry, and I note that you're not denying that the phenomenon does occur, where players moan about this sort of thing. Indeed, you basically support the idea with your comments, but you still appear unwilling to accept the consequences of that observation. And yes, that is sad, just sad.

I have with 2e, but while I've heard this argument before, I just don't see the value of it. If 3e is problematic that I have to change all the rules, then why should I waste money on it in the first place? I was looking forward to 3e on a basis of being able to throw out all my old 2e rules, because it was annoying in the extreme that the rules were spread out all over n number of rulebooks, issules of Dragon, plus my own revisions. It quickly dawned on my, however, that the 3e base was far, far less open to tinkering than 2e ever was. 2e had lots of rules marked as optional, while 3e has few, and the players rely on what those rules say - I hate being cast as the bad guy by the rules because something the rulebooks insist on contradicting my GM style. If that's what the rules do, then they have to go. Period. I demand that they support my authority as a GM, not the other way around. 2e does this. 3e does not. So farewell to 3e. Sure, 2e rules are just as bad, but they're close to two decades old now. I can accept that they look old because they are. 3e is supposed to be new and streamlined, however, and yet they are among the most rigid and inflexible rules I have seen in the last many, many years. Yes, I've added stuff from 3e to my house rules, but that was much easier to do than it was to play 3e with revisions. That does not speak highly of the playability of the game, if you ask me. However, none of them are necessary. Only the primary book for Star Wars is necessary, such as d20 Modern, though Dungeons and Dragons has 3 primary books. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I doubt I'm the only GM who has ever been met with frustration and disappointment from players, when I outlawed stuff they'd read in some odd supplement or issue of Dragon. Though I can stick by my guns, it's still annoying to both players and myself, and it's much worse in 3e, where there seems to be new classes and spells in every single new publication that comes out. And as GM I'm not even allowed a base on which to evaluate the strengths of the various classes on WRONG. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The DM/GM determines on what classes, rules, equipment, and etc. that are in his or game. Not a single primary rule book or supplementary book can override that. It is the DM/GM that determines the balance in his or her game. I have made my own classes that balanced the core classes well, as well as advance and prestige classes. I sugest actually reading and knowing the d20 System before posting such nonsense again. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> When you're met with a contrary position, your answer is to raise your voice?!? Sure I can override anything, but how many gamers will be at my table if I veto everything they've found in some obscure supplement or issue of dragon? People do tend to take these things as officially supported by the publishers, even if WOTC says it's not to be taken as such, they don't exactly draw attention to it, and consequently they undermine my position as GM everytime they publish new classes, as they continue to ignore the problem. WOTC's solution is equivalent to putting their fingers in their ears and going "lalalalalalah - I can't hear you!!!", because they can't be bothered to take these things into account as long as money keeps floating in. I want games, not marketing strategies intended to drain me for every penny. It's just easier to give 3e the miss and play something else, where this is not a problem. 2e may be old, but it's about as good/flawed as 3e, and doesn't have new stuff published to undermine my position as GM. Your truth is a lie. Deal with it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I did - I stopped playing 3e/d20.

This is where I stopped reading. It's all the proof I need that you will go to any lengths to further your personal crusade to bash the d20 system, even if it means making up stuff that you obviously know nothing about. The d20 system is by no means perfect, and not my first choice for the Fallout world. But it does follow the KISS rule, where many others don't. And that is a must for fun. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, things like Attacks of Opportunity follow the KISS principle... I may voice criticism of the d20 rules, but at least that's on a basis of having played them and even written adventures for those rules. If you're trying to infer that I'm just bashing d20 out of bias, then I must refute that - my position is very firmly rooted in bad experience not just from playing d20, but also from writing for it as a GM and as a designer. Is it a horrible system? No, but it could certainly have been a lot better with little effort, and I continue to find utter disappointing in its improvements (or lack thereof) compared to 2e. Even Monte Cook has basically said that 3.5e is a sales gimmick in his review of it (which now seems strangely absent from his website now), so it's not as if I'm alone in voicing criticism, even if I disagree with him that the core 3e rules were good. But then he's scarcely impartial, having actually written those rules. That he voiced criticism of 3.5e speaks volumes. But if my opinions are unpalatable to your apparent preference for d20, then I'm truly sorry

How does that in any way change the incredibly simplistic and insultingly unrealistic approach of d20 games? No, I'm not asking for the rules to be realistic, but I would prefer if they were not so far removed from anything you can believe in that they're basically screaming idiot in my face when I try to use them. Bad design at the core is not something that can be fixed quite so easily, though I'll admit that Star Wars is better than most d20 stuff. But then again, the old d6 system was even better. Even so, the point remains that there are lots of books to get even for the Star Wars game, if you want to see the whole thing. Special books about the jedi, the sith, etc. WotC knows that rulebooks sell, so you get lots of those, and each has lots of new classes, powers (or spells in d20), and so forth. That's where I hate d20 - it becomes a contest to who has access to the most uber-prestige classes, as there is no firmly established balance point in the core rules that everything else must adhere to. Or at least, if there is, then we do not get to see it, so even if WotC has that written down secretly somewhere, the GM does not get to make up his own mind on the matter. 2e actually had something like that, in case you wanted to make up your own classes. I see the truth hurts...

I think it's a possibility, though I wouldn't call it a certainty. It depends a lot of the plot, I guess.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Zayne Or Darth Nihilus could be his friend, Squint http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Squint So maybe a game about this? Greets, Darth Nihilus <{POST_SNAPBACK}> <_< I'll stick with my own theory that Nihilus is really the evil self of the Exile that he rejected on Malachor V.

Precisely the problem with d20: To get a system that is not lucriously abstract and lacking in the most simply of concepts, you have to buy a gazillion supplementary rulebook, scattering the basics across more books than 2e could ever wave a stick at. Oh, but they are still all *optional* of course... "