Jediphile

Yes, but where do you draw the line? I mean, is it enough that you can hit the arm, or must you be able to specifically hit the hand as well? Or even the finger? How about the head? Must you be able to target the throat or the eye as well? Agreed. As I have said before on these boards, D&D's abstract AC rules just don't make any sort of logical sense. They are simple, yes, but they are also too simple. It makes no sense that it's easier to hit a man in leather armor than a man in full plate mail, since it's rather more difficult to dodge blows in the latter case. I'd go for GURPS' damage reduction any day of the week. It makes far more sense and isn't really a complication to work with. And I dare say most people who have played Fallout will likely have arrived at the same conclusion.

That's a bit more information than I wanted...

If you're having trouble thinking of something to do in your campaign, take a look at the Net Book of Plots. I find it to be a good source for inspiration, even if I do always change them beyond recognition before I use them... As for rulesets, I always advice that you know the rules well. However, that doesn't need to be a problem. You can make very simple rules and be just fine, since they're easy to keep in mind. Heck you could make up your own rules, for that matter. Call of Cthulhu (5th edition, not d20) has very simple rules, for example, but it's still a great RPG (but it's horror, which is not everybody's cup of tea). Even for Fantasy, there are alternatives to D&D, though that is by far the most popular. I've played White Wolf's Exalted, and it's excellent if you like manga/anime. The system also isn't so difficult, I think. The biggest problem with Exalted is that there is a huge (albeit interesting) backstory that the GM needs to be familiar with (but not the players so much), before play begins. If you're just looking for a rule system, then there is no need to pay for it. For example, Fudge is free, and you can get free versions of Fudge and GURPS (lite). GURPS is sometimes a good choice, because you can use it for any setting and can expand from the free version (lite) to the full version later, if you like it.

I like huge and complex game systems as well, but I've learned over the years that it becomes pointless to deal with them if the rules are not easily referenced. It's just no use that there precise and exact details for how that particular armor is affected when struck by this specific weapon under water, if you cannot find the rule and use it in a few seconds during a game. If the game complexity begins to interfere with the pace at which the game evolves, then the rules need to go. It's a shame, but it is true, I think. As for the GM having a character himself, I cannot agree with it. The danger of that character becoming omniscient and never doing something wrong because the GM doesn't want to lose "his" character is just far too great. I've used an old favorite PC of mine as an NPC in my own Mystara campaign, but I was very wary of the danger and think I managed to avoid it. Besides, I used him more as conduit to connect different things in the plot, as my players explored it. On the contrary, if the players think the GM will protect his own characters, then make sure to introduce a new NPC that goes with the PCs, and then promptly kill him off at the first opportunity Generally the rules you choose to use don't matter. It's nowhere nearly as important as the GM's own ability to maintain internal consistency in his campaign and how well he can get his plots to unfold at the right pace. The most important part of rules is that they are consistent. If you don't like the rules you have, then change them. But try to do it before play begins, and make sure the players know what has been changed and why. Nothing is worse than creating a new character on the basis of the game foundation that later turns out to have changed. If anything is worse, then it's the GM suddenly having changed his already established rulings, that you have come to rely on as a plyaer, only he forgot to inform you of it. That sort of thing can kill the game and make players leave in seconds, and rightly so. Of course, you could become aware that something needs to be changed only after the campaign has started. In my experience that will almost certainly happen at some point. Even then it's okay to change things, as long as you don't try to use your authority as a GM to impose it upon the players. I find that most players are reasonable people, if you explain to them why something is causing problems and needs to be changed. In most cases the players just don't like being bullied... And if you change the rules during the campaign, invite the players to suggest revisions to their own characters, if they feel like it. This doesn't mean giving them a card blanche to rewrite their characters, though. Whatever they wish to change should be consistent with the character's, well, character And don't outlaw min-maxing. It's not a bad thing per se, because naturally the players will speculate about how to make their characters most powerful. If they do not, then chances are that they're just not very interested in the game, and you really don't want that either. Sure, be aware that min-maxing doesn't go to far, but don't treat is as criminal behaviour either. Many GMs do, and I think they're wrong.

Have you looked at the progress recently? A lot of it is already 100% (=done!), and mostly it seems it's just Malachor that is unfinished, probably because it needs to reflect what has happened in the plot up to that point, and the team needs to know that first (i.e., after they've settled all the additions to the plot that come before Malachor chronologically). But yes, it is difficult to wait...

I hate JarJar, but given that Lucas, in his infinite wisdom, decided to make him part of Star Wars canon, the addition of the Naboo scene in RotJ is somehow fitting, and it's just a few seconds anyway. I'm just glad that was all he decided to add... Erm, you do realise that only ANH is from 1977, right? ESB is from 1980, and RotJ from 1983... Oh, come on. They're not *all* bad. The X-wing attack on the Death Star in Ep. IV is definitely nicer in the revised version. I do have the original versions of the films on video, and the x-wing attacks just look old. And although it probably sucks for Clive Revill (the original voice of Palpatine in ESB) and Jeremy Bullock (the original Boba Fett), it was relevant to have them replaced in the DVD by Ian McDiarmid and Temuera Morrison respectively, since it made for better consistency. It was also better to see a Wampa with a severed arm in ESB rather than just watch some ugly arm-like thing with white hair drop to the ground after Luke chopped it off. No, not all the changes were for the better, I'd agree, but I'm not going to slash them just for being new and "heresy and defilement of canon"...

I *LIKE* T3 best (in K2, he was totally useless and I never used him in K1). HK-47 is more fun and interesting, but I don't like him as a character, so since the question is which i like best, T3 will definitely win. It's quite telling that *nobody* has voted for GOTO, who seems to be universally hated by everyone...

Which should tell you something...

Jolee, then Bastila, I guess. HK-47 is fun for his comments. I sort of like him for the same reasons I like Garak on DS9. Both have some wonderful lines, but they are both murderous scum of the worst sort, and I don't like them as characters... Nah, on second thought, HK-47 is crap next to Garak...

Killing any of the masters will earn you the DS ending, it seems. If you do not kill them, then your alignment decides the LS or DS ending. On Onderon, you will have to side with Talia early on to get the LS choice for that world, though you can reverse it the first time you talk briefly to Kavar (when you're interrupted by Tobin and his guards). I actually "took care" of the captains loyal to Talia (earning a few DS points), and yet managed to tell Tobin that I would never side with him and Vaklu. Then I got the LS outcome for Onderon.

Just for the record, Boba wasn't killed in RotJ, so we don't know if it's a reference to him. That's true even if you discount the novels and comics as "stupid EU non-canon", since Boba makes an appearance in Jedi Academy. If we take the EU into account, Boba isn't the last Mandalorian at all, since Fenn Shysa is there and even becomes Mandalore later...

I don't care what the fanboys think - Revan is not immortal. Malak betrayed him and he had to be saved by the jedi for crying out loud. What could be more humiliating for a Sith lord? Besides, we don't even know if Palpatine was lying or exaggerating about the alleged powers of Darth Plagueis.

Are those femme fatales? I think the definition is by far the most relevant, which rules most of the suggestions out. Bastila might count, but only for a DSM Revan, and even then I'd doubt it, since Revan makes a choice rather being charmed into anything. Kreia is certainly manipulative and leads people to doom, but she can scarcely be said to use her "great seductive charm" to entice men (eeek - I don't even want that image in my head...) Sure, Kreia is Lady Macbeth or a female Ahab, but not a femme fatale. I don't think the rest let anyone astray at all...

Then who died in Luke's arms? Yes

I see dead topics... :ph34r:

Let me get this straight, you actually think she was on a fourth ship? I mean, we have: 1. The Harbinger 2. Ebon Hawk 3. The sith warship and then we also have 4. Kreia's ship ?? It's conjecture, but it could be. I mean, I'm not disputing or questioning your theory, I just want to be sure I understand it correctly. They don't know, and Kreia is right to conclude that they act out of pure fear. It's precisely because they seek to just attack what they don't understand because they see it as a threat rather than attempt to understand and accept it, and then perhaps resolve it somehow, that she becomes so angry with them. Kreia: "He has brought truth, and you condemn it? The arrogance!" I actually agree with Kreia there. She overreacts completely, but that doesn't mean that she is not right to point out their arrogance. But I do think the Exile is a leech/siphon, since he usurps the force of others through the force bonds he creates with them. But that's not why the masters decide to cut him off from the force. They are far more afraid of his connection to the "new sith", which means Nihilus, but they don't know that. Note what they say: "When we felt Katarr die, there is something we felt, something we'd felt once before. An echo in the Force.We'd felt it before when you stood before us. Whatever this threat, whatever this hunger is, it is something tied to you, something you have experienced directly. This echo travels in the places where death has walked, where planets have died. Massacres fuel its power, the death of life fuels it." And a little later: "The Sith are a threat, it is true. But the threat they present... it is tied to you in some way. The echo we have felt on the worlds we have walked - we have encountered it only once before, when you stood before us at your trial.We believe that somehow, you are creating this - or that the Sith have learned this technique from you." That's what the masters fear, not merely that the Exile can use force powers through his bonds with others.

:"> You're right. It doesn't. Short enough?

That was so easy it was almost redundant. Is it even possible to fail it? I certainly never have... Basically just fire like crazy for the first few seconds and half the enemy fighters will be gone already. Then you get to choose whether the rest is a milk run or a cake walk... :cool:

I think that will happen yet... And it will be cool if it does...

The entire opening of the game has long bugged me. Just how did Kreia get aboard the Ebon Hawk? We know that T3 controls the Ebon Hawk, since he locked the navi-computer as per Revan's orders, we know that T3 went with Revan to the unknown regions and then went back (Carth tells the LS Exile this after the fight with Nihilus), and we know that T3 sought the Exile out because Bastila (or Carth) commanded him to do so. Kreia did not, however, go to the unknown regions. She says so herself at the end. "If he had asked... would I have gone? I do not know." So just how did she end up on the Ebon Hawk? I don't know. I half suspect that she was on the sith war ship using her camouflage and then snuck onto the Ebon Hawk... I think so. They're old war buddies, and those bonds are pretty tight, as I'm certain any war veteran will confirm. Not really. I've explained it on these boards before, but I'll open up a can of worms if I mention it here, I fear. If you're interested, take at look towards the end of page 1 in this topic. And this is where i get lost. my intent is not to be a pain, but aren't you contradicting yourself in the first vs. second paragraphs? Exile isn't an ominiscient being, her/him cutting her/his self off from the Force defies what should have happened. Gotcha up to there. So Exile defies the will of the Force by doing what only an ominiscient being could do, proving the Force has a will? That would only apply if the will of the Force was for Exile not to succumb to the echoes and iminent fall to the DS by instead becoming a wound in the Force... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I do hope that I'm not contradicting myself, but then I can scarcely judge that myself. Anway, I guess the point I've failed to make is that while the Exile did this, he has no idea that he did it. The Exile is, as per Vandar's comments, an average jedi, but he has a uniquely powerful ability that no other jedi has. Only he is completely oblivious to it himself. When he rejects the will of the force, he doesn't do so as a conscious choice, but as a pure act of instinct, just as you would say "ouch" if you were stuck by something or would quickly remove your hand on instinct if you accidentally put it on the hot stove. Yes. That's how I see it.

You mean, your opening statement didn't clear enough up? I think you, The Architect, and myself are all on the same page here... Yes, but note that the ghostly version of the Exile is always DS. I've played that part several times, and it's always a DS version of the Exile standing there. Always. Now, if you play Exile as LS as I do, then s/he was never DS, since it was prevent precisely that fate that s/he denied the force in the first place. So where does that DS mastery bit come from? Yes, but going through that bit again and paying close attention to ghost-Kreia as opposed to the real Kreia. The latter tells you afterwards that you faced visions of the past, but ghost-Kreia mentions the present and the future as well. And I tend to believe even the ghost of Kreia over Kreia herself... You sure you want an answer to that? :cool: Revan was long-sighted, yes, but I don't think s/he had much patience. Revan is not the type to wait around for things to turn out as s/he wants them to. Revan is long-sighted, but s/he will make things go the way s/he intends them to if they don't by themselves. Also, while I agree that Revan corrupted the jedi as a means to create an army to fight the true Sith, it is not clear at which point s/he embraced that plan. I doubt it was before Revan learned of the true Sith on Malachor V. It could have been before, and I have defended that position in the past, but I've changed my view on it a little. I do think Revan want to war with the Mandalorians simply to save the innocent (and incidentally the Republic), assuming LS Revan that is, and then only found out about the true Sith later in the war. Anyway, it probably doesn't matter so much... Carth should be in there for a LS Revan, yes. I'm not sure I want him as a companion, though, since that doesn't make much sense. In my own plot, Carth would be essential to redeeming the fallen LSF Revan-turned-DS. And naturally Carth should be commanding the republic forces during a final confrontation with the true Sith. If Revan was LS, that is, otherwise Cede.

[shudder] ...well, at least ESB is winning, as it should be.

Oh god no, not that. That was lame. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It was just as lame, if not more so, in the original version, I fear... So to me the change was a non-factor...

There actually can be a good reason for that, even though I would sort of have preferred they kept Sebastian Shaw. In short, Anakin returned to who he was before he fell to the dark side. And his most recent LS self was indeed that played by Hayden Christensen, since he was consistently Vader and not Anakin from that point on and until Luke redeemed him when he died. Yoda and Obi-Wan, however, never fell to the dark side, so their force-ghost selfs would be unchanged from who and what they were when they died.