Jediphile

Didn't mean to say so. But that doesn't preclude decent game design. Funny - so am I

"Better" is entirely subjective, so it's as pointless as a cleric's weapon to discuss... I have already said that I like 3e to-hit rules better than 2e, but that doesn't mean that I think the entire system is better. Of course 3e is better than 2e on some points. Being the conclusion to more than a decade of 2e, it bloody well better be, only it's not on a lot of points IMHO. But there are good points. I like the to-hit rules, for example, and I like the multi-class better, too - 2e had horrible dual- and multi-class rules. Skills would also be infinitely better in 3e if it were not because their restricted based on level, which is preposterous. You cannot declare 3e the winner without first addressing some of the concerns and flaws that Lancer and myself have pointed out in 3e, primarilly the peculiar Attack of Opportunity rules. And some of the 3e classes are just silly and steal from role-playing. I particularly dislike the sorcerer, who was nicknamed "fireball-dispenser" in about five minutes on the official D&D board for good reason... A completely munchkin class with no redeeming features - bleh! It spoke volumes that WOTC subsequently released books that "removed" the one price sorcerers had to pay for extra spells, namely a limited knowledge of spells " Another thing I really dislike is the plethora of classes and spells that spill out of every rulebook and magazine subsequently released under the principle of "well, to get a *really* powerful character, you just need to buy this book and use this new spell/class". The subsequent release of 3.5 after only a few years, truly turning Hasbro and Wizards into Ha$bro and Wizard$... Even one of the designers of 3e voiced criticism of 3.5! But the worst thing in 3e is really the terrible game design. It's similar to previous D&D, of course, but then all those editions are pretty old. 3e is only a few years old, and it's still based on rigid and inflexible game mechanics that are more than three decades old. This was acceptable in 1988 when 2e came out. It is inexcusable today. Besides, 2e at least had a "grandfather clause" that kept it close to 1e rules. 3e rules, however, are completely incompatible with earlier editions. I have friends who like and play 3e, but while the don't agree with me, they do admit that it is an entirely different game. For an entirely newly designed game, 3e is founded on horribly outdated concepts - there are far better designed games out there today, I think.

Some muslims from Denmark have been touring the arab nations looking for support in their rage over this. The fact that a norwegian magazine also chose to publish the drawings only a few weeks ago seems to have pushed the issue.

Maybe so, but getting a lightsaber early in the game is actually consistent with d20 Star Wars rules in the RPG, which states that upon reaching level 2, a padawan constructs his own lightsaber as part of his training...

Declaring 3e more intuitive simply on the basis of the to-hit rule seems incredibly oversimplified and short-sighted to me. There are quite a few other rules that should be considered before making that conclusion, you know...

First of all, the calculation is actually: To hit = THAC0 - die roll, because you generally don't know what the enemy AC is - you roll the dice, subtract it from your THAC0, then state what AC you hit, and then the GM or player tell you whether that's enough or not. Second, I know that the calculation is always the same. My point is that even after doing it hundreds if not thousands of times, I still had to stop for a second and rethink what was to be subtracted for what. If that happens, then adding numbers together naturally becomes more convenient and so easier.

Not sure if this was posted before, but in the interest of enlightenment, you can see the controversive cartoons on wikepedia - make your own judgment from that.

A few comments: While I have played 2e for long, long years as a GM, I will admit that 3e has some good points. The AC increasing instead of decreasing does seem simpler for me, and we adopted it in my campaign (not that it's a problem - just subtract the old value from 20...). However, it is not easier because values going up are easier by definition. No, it's easier due to the difference between addition and subtraction. If I add my THAC0/attack modifier to my die roll, then the order doesn't matter because the result will be the same. The same is not true for subtraction, where order makes a great difference - should I subtract my THAC0 from the die roll or vice versa? I frequently had think twice about that before. Now, before the 3e-fans jump up and down and say this is proof that 3e is more intuitive, I do think you're ignoring several points. Things like this may make 3e look simpler on the surface, but that doesn't mean that it is when you go to the depths of the rules, and if you are to conclude anything about whether the system is intuitive, you have to look at the ruleset in its entirety, not just a small fraction of the surface. I would go as far as to say that 2e AC/Thac0 seems "counter-intuitive" mostly because you use that rule all the time - you are constantly in combat in D&D and have to calculate this every two seconds. So it seems persistent, which is annoying if you don't like it... On the other hand, AoO don't seem "counter-intuitive" simply because the rule is not relevant in every combat round. However, when you have to use the rule, it'll be a major undertaking, and I think most people just ignore it on that basis alone. Which is fine, but still ignoring the designed game balance. And I would agree with Lancer that AoO are counter-productive to easy of gameplay. Of course you don't mind that in CRPGs, because the computer does it all for you, but in PnP the GM has to do it, which slows down gameplay. Also, AoO are not always very logical. People tend to argue in favor of them on the simple basis of "if you drop your guard, then the other guy exploits it". Fair enough, except in true combat timing is actually important, and 3e rules would have you believe that swinging a sword at someone is as easy as casting a spell or stabbing with a knife. It speaks volumes that 3e introduced this into the core rules and yet tossed out the speed factors and casting times of 2e at the same time. Yes, 2e actually did have durations for actions you took in the initiative rules. They were called Speed Factors for weapons and Casting Times for spells, but they were all the same and evaluated into combat units called segments. Magic Missile had a casting of 1. A dagger had a speed factor of 2. A longsword had a speed factor of 5. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that a mage has to drop his guard to cast Magic Missile, but that doesn't automatically mean that orc can swing his longsword before the mage finishes the spell, and 3e completely ignores that possibility. Sure a long sword has longer reach than a dagger, but in the time it takes you to swing it, it'll already have put my dagger in your throat or heart, so your attack is void. By throwing rules like these out, 3e became flawed at its very core, which is a major reason why I dislike it and will not play it. To indicate that swinging a two-handed sword is just as fast as firing my gun is preposterous, yet 3e claims it is so. Or as the 2e PHB says, "Compare how quickly someone can throw a punch to the amount of time required to swing a chair to get a good idea of what weapon speed factors are about". This 3e completely ignores and is therefore a flawed system. Finally, on the point of experience vs. familarity. Yes, of course "old-timers" like Lancer and myself are "used" to 2e and not 3e. However, I fail to see how that in some way makes us incompetent or unfit to evaluate the strengths or weaknesses of 3e. In most other walks of life, the principle is that those who are able to best pass judgment on the success or failure of a revision are the people who best know the previous version or edition. This is untrue for RPGs?

Actually Carth might have lived even in the DS Revan version of K2 - he just never makes an appearance. Bastila, however, does appear no matter what you play in K2. If you pick LS male Revan or DS Revan (either gender), then she is the one who appears in T3's holorecording, whereas it's Carth in the LS female Revan version. But Bastila appears again later in the game. If you play with LS Revan, then she meets with Carth after the Exile had talked to him upon saving Telos. If Revan is DS, Bastila appears as another holorecording found in the ruins of the Sith academy on Korriban. Personally I do want most of the previous characters to make some sort of appearance again, though I do think the LS/DS choices of K1 and K2 should be taken into consideration. This is not a problem, however. As we see in K2, it's entirely possible to put a "known" character in the plot only to replace him or her with an new character, if the chosen plot has killed the former. This was true of Carth, but actually the game also contains multiple recordings of the Darth Traya dialogue depending on whether Kreia or Atris ended up in that role. So it doesn't strike me as a particular problem to include Jolee and then allow for a 'replacement' in case he was killed. IIRC, there was even to have been a possibility of having Atris as a playable character in the party at one point in K2, so it really is just a question of implementing some ideas that Obsidian have already considered.

Have you finished the game? If not, then you really should before you look for the explanation for Kreia's comment about what's best for the galaxy - it's pretty central to the end of the game. Can't remember the part you refer to, but it should be fairly simple to extract it from the dialog.tlk file if we can identify it.

Yes, it's difficult to live with...

Yeah! At least you never defiled Mystara with 3e. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually I did in one scenario with players outside my usual group. They were dedicated to 3e, and I wanted to show them a corner of what Mystara was. Still, I focused heavily on the skills (which aren't so bad in 3e, except for the level limitations) and had little or no combat or spell use. Oh, and I cowrote a 3e Mystara series of adventures... But this was before I broke with 3e. I gave it chance and hated it, and when 3.5 appeared on the horizon, I'd had enough...

My point is that with this scenario, Revan's motives remain his own and so the player remains free to interpret them however he prefers to. Seems to me to be a good way to compromise the various possible outcomes of K1 and K2 and yet have an interesting setup for K3.

Much better than the competing (A)D&D stuff, but as games go, I actually like Call of Cthulhu better. Mystara is tied way too closely to the more silly aspects of D&D rules... I've been considering the idea of Mystara with GURPS rules, but it'll be a major rewrite and I'd lose or have to heavily convert a lot of the feel in the process <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why don't you try a FUZION Mystara? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Nah, then I might as well go for GURPS anyway. My current Mystara campaign is winding down and will use 2e player option rules (with my heavily modified house rules) until it ends. I've been considering what to do after that, but circumstances might choose for me - I really can't find the time to GM anymore - the Mystara campaign has only survived the last six months because I already had the entire progression of all remaining events and adventures plotted out and therefore could improvize them whenever convenient... And I know Mystara pretty much by heart now...

It is and should be limited by the laws of course, yes. I guess I forgot to mention that. And if I understand it correctly, Jyllandsposten was reported for their cartoons, only the prosecutor decided to drop the case, since he saw no way to win it.

A consensus is useless unless there is some measure of force to make sure that consensus is respected. Be it social ostracism, criminal prosecution, or whatever. In this case there is not only no such consensus, but enforcing it should it be reached would undoubtedly entail undermining individual freedoms. Reaching a consensus may be enough for you and me, and even then, only as long as we keep respecting each other. The question here is, do they respect us? I doubt it, because if they did, they would not tell us what should or should not publish in our press. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> To me this very discussion is an example of whether there should be a right to free speech. This is a controversial subject, and yet we discuss it here. Should we be prevented from that in some cases or should there be limits to what opinions we can express? We may not reach a consensus, but to me the point is whether we are even allowed to look for one through discussion and debate or whether we should accept limitations based on what 'someone' might find offensive. Since we are all still here, it seems most of us prefer the right to free speech. I may not like the cartoons and think the reason for publishing them was questionable - they seemed to serve only as provocation - but if it's a choice between that and censorship of any kind, I'll support the cartoons, since I find that to be the lesser evil, even if it has ghastly consequences, since the alternative is even more scary.

Don't feel so bad. There is no reason to feel like a failure. After all, it's not your fault that KotOR-fans cannot agree on what they would want. In that sense we're really not different from any other fans. Just trying jumping onto a Star Trek board and ask the fans what should be done and which stories should be told to revive the franchise. It's a sure road to havoc and disagreement, I fear... And KotOR fans have better cause to dissent, since the games allow you to end up as both good and evil and choose the gender as well... for two characters now. I mean, just suggest that Revan or Exile should be set to male/female or LS/DS by canon and K3 should then assume that choice, and it'll be certain to cause dissent.

Mystara had specific guidelines for "dominions" in the old rules (and in the Rules Cyclopedia) with castles, servants, and such. Take a look at some of the articles here. Mystara also had rules for becoming an immortal (god). Still, Birthright had rules where the players were the leaders of entire nations...

If the player goes DS, he should stab Revan and Exile in the back, leaving them both dead, and then rule the true Sith while the republic is left to rebuild.

Much better than the competing (A)D&D stuff, but as games go, I actually like Call of Cthulhu better. Mystara is tied way too closely to the more silly aspects of D&D rules... I've been considering the idea of Mystara with GURPS rules, but it'll be a major rewrite and I'd lose or have to heavily convert a lot of the feel in the process

I like that idea, it's good. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, I don't. To play Revan and Exile over two games just to see them killed off by the plot is disappointing. I want them in the game, and I'd like them as group members too. It shouldn't happen until late in the game, however, or the dreaded level-gap will rear it's ugly head - we don't want any more amnesic jedi, who just lost all their powers again, so I'd either let them appear only toward the end or else to let them be unplayable NPCs (or a little of both).

Well, he has no fleet anymore and the republic is too weak to fight the true Sith. My take is that he will willingly become DS and then have to ambition to rule the Sith empire before taking on the republic. But naturally the current leaders will not want that, so there will be conflict, and that's what "good" Revan is counting on - that the civil war he begins among the true Sith will - no matter which side wins - leave them so weak that they cannot take on the republic afterwards. He may also have left alone so that his friends could kill or redeem him later.

I actually prefer that they leave it unanswered. The worst thing a story can do is to reveal all of its mysteries. Besides, if there is an answer, then how can we have fun topics like this one?

Interesting. Especially given that I have actually tried to cite examples to support my position. Unlike you, I might add. But then I guess you just know so much better than me that you don't to worry about little things like supporting your position with the very facts you mention. You also fail to distinguish between my opinion and myself. Don't feel too bad, though - sadly, it happens rather more frequently than I should like to admit, which makes the chance of a civil discussion astronomically small... What are we supposed to gather from that? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That I can't very well argue in favor of open discussion where any opinion should be heard while I run to the moderators when I don't like something that someone else says. If I did that, then I would be a hypocrit. But then I'm sure someone will twist that to mean that I am anyway... Based on this topic, my opinion of some members of these boards did not so much drop as plummet. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thank you. It should be quite clear from the phrase "religion was still an issue that served as a convenient pretense for pursuing the jews" that I did not say religion was the cause of the entire war. That is the only rational conclusion. The use of the word "pretense" is rather clear. And of all the possiblities, religion was the focus of the - to use your own words - "convenient scapegoat" he chose to polarize the germans against an "foreign" threat. To me that says rather a lot about religion, but feel free to draw your own conclusions. Just consider my point before you dismiss it, please. Criticizing my statements is the not same as criticizing me. You made comments like "coming from you" and similar. Those do not refer to my arguments or statements by to me as an individual. I am grown up. I have not become angry or voiced attacks against you. I have discussed the topic and called you on it when you strayed from it. But I will continue to demonstrate that you are a bully as long as you give me cause and as long as I feel like it... So whether I continue is really up to you - if you stop giving me cause, then I cannot and will not continue. I'm more tolerant than you give me credit for. But when someone attacks the right to free speech, I do take it very seriously, as it is far more important to me than any religion. I didn't like the cartoons and didn't see their purpose, so I thought printing them was a mistake, but if someone says the newspaper can't print them, then I'll stand 100% behind the newspaper, because nobody should censor the press. Similarly, I may not like it when you misrepresent and criticize me, but I'll support your right to do so.