Jediphile

Well, I've never felt a need to listen to them on a playlist, so I guess that explains why I look at it differently. I mean, the various soundfiles aren't exactly structured into a chronological order or indeed any sort of particular order, so jumping back and forth would seem inevitable to me in any event. I do have and use Winamp - it's playing in the background as I type, actually - but renaming all those files just seems more trouble than it's worth, somehow...

Ah, okay. So the GM is competing with the players, since he playes that opposition, thanks for clearing that up... I don't agree, but hey... Actually it is - you've actually even said so yourself, when you admitted that D&D rules say they are not competitive. [sigh] Time for another round of "I think", I suppose... Exactly whose opinion and experience am I allowed to speak from if not my own? I'd like to know, since my experience as a player of two decades and GM of nearly as much (in D&D) is obviously not good enough to consider... That makes one more than you... Also, I speak from experience and preference, when you seem to speak from preference alone... Show where the rules say anything about D&D being a gamist system. Well, you just said the competition was between the players and the opposition (whici is the GM), and now you say the opposite. Which is it? That's not a very compelling argument, since all RPG systems must be "gamist" by that definition - reality is by its very nature far more complex than it is relevant or playable to represent extensively in a game. Internal consistency inside the game world's own laws is not the same as reality. There are no magical rings in the real world, but there are twenty magical rings in Tolkien's Middle Earth - if we suddenly have more than that, then the world becomes inconsistent and flawed, and so violates its own established reality. If there are to be so many magical swords in D&D, then someone must have made them - they did not grow from holes in the ground because it was convenient, so who made them? The warriors (fighters, paladins, rangers, barbarians, etc.) cannot. The clerics and wizards can, but they have little reason to, since they can't use them.

Yes. I fear the green one beckons...

There was money in K2 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There was, but did you need it? I hardly noticed it, let alone used it much, myself.

What can I say - I definitely enjoy actual role-playing a lot more than pointless dice-rolling and monster-slashing... You're wrong about me liking LARP, though. I actually did try it once, and I have friends have have consistently tried to persuade me to play with them, but it just never appealed to me, because I find it limiting. In LARP you have to play a character who is somewhat like you are yourself, if the illusion is to work without seeming incredibly forced. It also requires that I have the ability to convince others that I possess the skills that my character does, and that can be difficult. I prefer to keep the option of playing absolutely anything I want to without having to worry about looking the part, be it an ex-slave twi'lek girl in Star Wars, a powerful but shady and mysterious wizard in D&D Mystara, an ethical captain with a dark past in Star Trek, or a fat former frenchman with an interest for the occult in Call of Cthulhu, all of which I have played in the past...

It pays well. It's also a profession that dosnt have a "side". Which gives you a lot of freedom of choice. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ...There is that, but I still don't like it personally. Traditionally, mercs fight for the highest bidder and generally, lack a lot of morals. And loyalty. Except to their purse. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Besides, what do you need the money for in KotOR? It really wasn't a major priority in KotOR1, and I hardly paid any attention to it at all in KotOR2, since you could just create stuff and sell for cash if it came to that...

Why am I thinking Space: Above and Beyond... :D Ah, that was a good show... so obviously the cancelled it...

Power will not give you friendship. It will not bring you love that you can believe. It will breed only enemies. Power means that you can never trust anyone. Power means that everyone is out to get you, and you can never no security or peace, since you're always looking for the knife in the back. LS ftw.

I'm actually more into Call of Cthulhu and GURPS... But D&D will always be close to my heart, since it was my first RPG, my favorite campaign setting is tied unmistakably to D&D, and I've played it for two decades and still do.

So it comes down the same thing again - the game designers and players of years of experience know nothing... Sure. The game designers only wrote it. The players only use it... Right... Whatever... So who are they competing against if not the GM or each other? There's nobody else present unless you count the characters, in which case it would be better to stop playing altogether (for your mental health - D&D sadly lacks sanity rules, which says a lot)... If there is a chance for losing and winning and rewards it is a competitive process, and these exists in almost all RPG game systems... However, if the game system focuses (prioritizes) on these elements, then the game system itself becomes competitive. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The point of an RPG is not to "win" cool "prizes". It is not a gameshow. The pcs are exploring the dungeons, not taking the chance of seeing what's behind door number three. The "prize" lies in the narrative of the evolving plot for the characters. Whether they find "cool gadgets" along is of little or no consequence to that. Not unless GM tries to all out kill the players, or do whatever constitutes as winning at any specific GM vs. players game... D&D, however, isn't such. (A part of) The GM's job in D&D is to create encounters for characters, and these are the competitive part of it. The GM helps create the Game for the characters, he doesn't try to win it. That doesn't mean the orc, the pit trap or the haggling merchant don't try to "win" against the players in the game world. This is what players vs. GM-made-opposition competitiveness is about. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ah, okay... so it's competitive, only neither the players nor the GM is trying to "win" over the others... Yup, that makes a lot of sense... And you're completely ignoring my points, which doesn't make for the best of discussions. It also makes me think that it's because you have no arguments to support your own position and instead just continues to spew the same points over and over while ignoring mine, in which case you're better off not "arguing" at all. And implying that I don't want to listen just because I'm not writing something you don't like to read is pretty... well, let's just say unfair, since I don't want to offend too much. You're also refusing to see that since every character or NPC in an RPG is played or represented by an active player (including the GM), that means it does become competitive between players. Who makes the decision on what the orc does if not the GM? Again, it's about the prioritization. It doesn't mean you completely throw out the aspects that you don't prioritize, but rather only in those instances where they are in contradiction with the aspects you are trying to prioritize. Hit Points are a good example of a rule where there exists even no slight realism. The long fall in your previous example is one where some exists, but has not been prioritized. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What has that got to do with the whether it's reasonable for a sword to cost less than it does to create it? You're completely ignoring the issue... again. You're the one who argued that RPGs shouldn't be "realistic". This is an example, and they do occur in some RPGs. But if you don't want to answer that admittedly academic example, we could take the other one I mentioned, and which you conveniently cut from what you chose to reply to, which was about why there are not more magical weapons of the sorts that wizards and clerics use, when they are the ones who can make magical weapons. That's basic stupidity, too.

Third time is a charm? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No. Once was annoying, but acceptable. Twice was a pain, but bearable. Thrice will be punishment... But that just brings the question of the number of NPCs. There were far too many in the last few games, and I doubt anyone ever got to use them all. I never used T3 in K1. I never used GOTO in K2. If you can use only 2 companions next to the pc, then why bother having more than four or five altogether?

It was terrible. Okay, there were a few good fighter plane sequences in there, so it had some quality on the visual effects front, but otherwise it was complete drivel. Listen to the song from Team America: World Police - that says it all... I do have Pearl Harbor on DVD, but I got it in the cheap bin... and I paid too much...

I think so too, though not as good as Saving Private Ryan.

True enough. The TIE Defender ruled supremely. After that X-Wings and A-Wings are for wimps! :D

That explains so much... "What's you gonna do... What's you gonna do, when they come for you?" :D

I think they pay out death benifits. Being a TIE fighter pilot sounds like a really cool job if you read the backstory. Most of the people who work for the Empire are completely clueless. TIE Fighter was really amazing. You get to fly with Darth and rescue the Emporer. Even though you know they are the bad guys. As a pilot you get treated really well and you progress in the emporers service with a big smile on your face. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The cool thing about TIE Fighter was that they got the background right. You might have known you fought for the bad guys as a player, but the character didn't - he was just trying to preserve order, police the galaxy, and stop the rebel insurgents. I'm sure Palpatine called the rebels terrorists. But I must disagree that being a TIE Fighter pilot was a cool job. One reason the Empire lost so many great pilots (apart from being an oppressing tyranny and racist against non-humans) was that they treated their pilots like dirt, including Han Solo, Biggs Darklighter, Tycho Celchu among others. "What? Shields on your fighters? No, no - that'll just make for bad pilots - they'll be more inspired to be great pilots if they have no shields... What's that, Lord Vader? Yes, of course your new prototype TIE Fighter will have state-of-the-art shields, mylord!"

I really don't want to play yet another jedi (or even the same) who, yet again, lost his power and has to start over. Twice in two games is my limit. And I do think I'm not alone on that... Why would that be a nightmare? People often say so, but I've never understood why. Seems to me it's a few conversations seeting Revan's and Exile's gender and alignment (four conversation paths there) and then one screen choosing Revan's face and one screen choosing Exile's. We could even add another two conversation paths and set Revan's and Exile's jedi classes. Sounds very quick to me. Was setting Revan's gender and alignment really such an annoying in K2? Killing Revan is anti-climactic, at least to me. He left to stop the true Sith, and then we find out he failed and just got himself killed? What a downer... Revan's fate needs closure, not being written out of the story during the opening credits like Hicks and Newt in Alien 3.

You don

Well, yes, but then isn't Nihilus supposed to be enigmatic? Besides, I think we might find out more in K3...

As was I. It should be noted in many ways this is fast becoming a dead horse, even though it's my thread and I'm glad people are interested. It's become quite obvious that neither side of the fence is going to move, so I guess that's just that. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, it's probably just that it has been discussed before, and most of the points have been made and considered already. That means that in many cases people have already made up their minds for or against, and the only thing that could change that is if there was some new clue added to the discussion that enlighten things. However, since no such new clue has been brought forward, we're all stuck pretty much where we began...

There was some discussion in the Ep 2 DVD commentary about having the actor for the Clone Troopers (his name eludes me at the moment) do new voice tracks for the Storm Troopers in Ep 4-6 in a DVD release, so, yeah ... some, if not all, Storm Troopers were cloned. In almost all the pre-prequel EU source material I've read (quite a bit, but not all) the Storm Troopers' background was always left mysterious. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That doesn't sound right given how long it took the Kaminoans to "grow" the clone army. Besides, there are several instances in the EU of stormtroppers being perfectly ordinary people. Although I'm sure there would still be some of the original clone troopers left in the imperial forces. But I do think we got stormtroopers instead of clonetroopers because many among their ranks were no longer clones. Besides, Han and Biggs were in the imperial academy and Luke wanted to join, and last I checked, TIE pilots were sort of stormtroopers too.

It is mentioned in the current edition of D&D as well. It is however, incorrect. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So even if the rules support my interpretation and conflicts with your's then both the game designers and I are still wrong and you're right... Sounds like I'm not the one expecting the wrong things from D&D after all... That is monty haul and munchkinism, not role-playing. RPGs, even D&D, are not about 'getting the best prize'. If it were, then why is treasure determined randomly? Besides, you completely forget that experience is shared among the group - it really doesn't matter who killed the dragon (unless you have a kill board, but then that's between the players), since everybody was in danger and so gets an equal share of the xp. As for gaining prizes, who decides who gets what? The GM assigns xp to be shared among the group - the players have no control over it. The GM also gives out loot, but who gets what is decided among the players out of his control. Your entire argument is flawed. If you like to play D&D that way, great for you, but that's not what the rules support. You even know that yourself, so how can you even argue it. And what "prize" do you get for avoiding a war? None... except perhaps the knowledge of knowing that several thousand people lived instead of died, but then that's not a "prize" as such... You cannot twist a character's attempts to reach a goal into a competive process just because it fits your argument better. No. Item acquisition is random and can even be overruled by the GM. Most GMs look first at whether they want a particular item in their campaigns before they allow the pcs to find it, even if it was rolled randomly. They don't begin planning a scenario by setting up which great magical item should be awarded to the PC that "does best" in the game. How could they? They have no control over whether he gets it or not. But since the GM sets up that opposition, that's just GM vs. players by extension. Yes, clearly you know better than game designers of many years and GMs of over a decade's experience like your's truly... " Unlike you? Besides, let me repeat myself: No, they don't need "realism". They do need to have rules that suspend disbelief. They do not rules that are not obviously stupid. This is simply because you are equating "illogical" and "stupid" with "not realistic". Again, D&D is a gamist game. That means realism takes a back seat for competitiveness, but it can still be there. In the case of your swim check or long fall examples, the competitiveness is in the possibility of creating characters that can make such checks, or dealing with a problem requiring that check with a character who can't make it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You're not saying anything new. You're just repeating yourself and sounding like a broken record. I've already shown you the opposite, and you've even admitted that the rules do not support your take on things. And you're painting my argument as being for realism, which I have already said repeatedly is not the case. Is it "realism" to demand that a sword costs more than the iron value listed in the same rulebook? Or put differently, is being unrealistic in itself a good thing in an RPG? Would it be good if beggars in the streets of Waterdeep had longswords +5 or if every mouse had 1000+ hp? You have not argued against "stupid" or "illogical" yourself, after all, nor have you said they are bad elements in an RPG...

I still think it's much easier and more convenient to just download Miles Sound Studio...

Why do I need to play a powerful jedi? Why can't I just play a jedi that simply grows to some power from his experiences and the circumstances? Revan and Exile will be the great jedi. If there is a third great jedi, then it should be Bastila, not my main pc. Why do you need a reason to play dark side? You don't. People will simply play it if they prefer it. Besides, the DS reason in K1 was that Malak usurped your power and your leadership of the sith, and you wanted it back. I mean, he stabbed (shot) you in the back, so he deserves it, doesn't he? Malak's son: "Revan, why did you kill my father?" Revan: "He betrayed me, tried to kill me, abused my power, left me for dead to the jedi, then tried to kill me repeatedly and even bombarded entire planets to get rid of me, once he found out. He deserved it." Malak's son: "Ah, okay. Good point..." :D Sorry, doesn't quite work for me - it's obvious why Revan might want revenge on Malak.