Jediphile

No, quite the contrary - they should be free to do whatever they like, but it has to count off the clock, the enemy has to have the same option, and there should be a lot more uncertainty as to whether it turns out the way they planned. After all, things rarely turn out as planned in a combat situation, because few plans rarely survive the first confrontation. Combat is chaotic and random, and you fight that chaos as much as you do the enemy. I wanted that bit in there. Player choices are often very opportunistic and convenient in combat, and I wanted something where cooperation, planning, and strict adherence to a plan would be rewarded. That rarely happens in most RPG systems. Yes, except I wanted to count up and not down. One headache is how to manage the bookkeeping. I wanted no classification of how easy or difficult maneuvers were - it was all going to be individual and timed. Well, that's were I got stranded. The idea seemed to float, but how long does it actually take to swing a long sword? How long to cast a spell? They had Speed Factors in AD&D, but are they realistic? I don't know, and since I have little first hand knowledge of actual combat or melee, it was difficult to assign numbers to it all. It would be simpler, yes, but as you say, it would take away from the realism of it. Another problem is that it would make the Dexterity modification to timed actions all but impossible. Yes, that was my plan. Basically everybody rolls intiative a bit like in AD&D 2e, except you only determine the sequence of who goes first. Going before the other guy doesn't mean you act first, however, because the other guy might be quicker. If you act first, but the other guy has higher Reaction (presence of mind to act) and also has higher Dexterity (performing actions quicker), then he might finish his action before you do, similar to the classic gunslinger duel - one guy might go for the gun first, but the other guy is quicker to react and faster to draw his gun and therefore shoots first. Precisely, and so it serves to bring the confusion and uncertainty of combat across by the rules for the players to experience directly. I frequently see players look around for advice from their friends on what to do, and even though I try to penalize them for it, it still happens. This would punish indecisiveness on the spot. But it would also punish players who respond too strongly and does something that may cause trouble. As you say, it'll keep them on their toes, and it'll speed up combat too, because the players will have no time to consider their actions strategically - it'll force them to act far more on instinct. Yes, that always bugged me in WoD. It doesn't ruin the game, but it does slow it down, so what's the point? I planned to have you roll some dice, add up the numbers and add your relevant skill level, then try to hit the difficulty set by the GM. Fast and efficient. The other guy might get a chance to parry or block in melee, but that's fast-paced too.

Watch the badass Sith fight out here. Hilarious, I think, though not very serious "

That's one way of looking at, and it's doubtlessly what the "will of the Force" thinks of the situation. To Kreia it was a bold and unusual decision, however. She admires the Exile's state-of-mind to make the decision just as his ability to sever himself from the force.

Correct. Difficult, but not impossible, and I wanted something that both represented reality well and demonstrated just how difficult it is to coordinate combat. I hate in D&D that you go, "okay, I open the door, wizard cast your fireball. Okay, I close door", as if it was some easily manageable training exercise. I also hate (in AD&D) how the wizard comes quick in the round, casts his spell, and then stands around waiting for the round to finish before he can do something else, thereby giving the impression that the wizard isn't doing anything at all most of the time. You're correct in your assumptions, but not in your conclusion of how it would play out. Quite simply it would be like the GM keeping a "clock" and then counting off seconds. No player (or NPC or monster) does anything until his his next time unit in the combat sequence is reached. His action is not resolved until the time for its duration has expired, though. I also planned on adding a rule about how the GM would ask each player in turn what to do and keep a time limit for the answer - if the player took more than a few seconds to respond, then his character would be assumed to also be hesitant and suffer a "indecision" penalty to his timed action to reflect that. That would prompt players to be to the point about what they wanted to do rather than sitting around planning their actions strategically, which their characters really have no basis for doing in a combat situation. Except that is precisely what I don't like about combat rounds - why must you always "reset" and start over? That's not how it would work in the real world. If, in the real world, one guys could get five attacks to your two, then he would use them. I wanted that to be reflected in my system. But as I said, I never got it off the ground, and I might have run into severe difficulties getting the varoius combat aspects and options to fit together with such a system.

No, I wanted it all to be timed. Every single action/attack/option would have a specific duration assigned to it determining how long it took to perform (in seconds and fractions of seconds). There would then be a die roll (low - d4 or d6) to determine how long it took to 'recover' from an attack. Then the character would onto the next attack. Dexterity would slightly modify these durations, however - high Dex would let you do them slightly faster, while low Dex did the opposite. Still, all Attributes would be chosen in a point system (like GURPS) instead of random die rolls (as in D&D), so you'd have low Dex only if you chose to. Yep, that's the sort of thing I had in mind. Another problem was that I wanted a fatigue system, but didn't know how to make one that wasn't cumbersome to the players. I'd let you do all the attacks you wanted to, only you'd be tired in seconds if you took them all, of course. It was sort of inspired by the lightsaber duels of Episode I (or the entire prequel trilogy for that matter). They mostly looked very futuristic, but on the extra material on the Ep. I dvd, Nick Gillard speaks of it as being "chess at a 1000 miles a second", and when you see them practice it, it's actually much more dramatic than when you see it in the film, because it's much more convincing. In the film you know they're tricking you, but you don't know that it's actually just the backgrounds and lightsaber glows that are added in - they really do fight that fast, though they did train it for months first, of course. But it made me think when Nick Gillard said that it was so fast that they could only attack here or parry there, because there was no time for anything else. Now, I know I won't be doing jedi-battles in my system, but as a basis I liked those comments.

Yes, but all of this is cut content - none of it is in the game, and my point was that this was rather confusing. Bao-Dur's fate is a mystery, though. Nothing I've seen in the Cut Content discussion have shed light on what happened to him, and Kreia notably avoids talking about him when telling the Exile about the future of his companions.

Good point about those greek names for planets... I think the titans had cool names that could be used. Unfortunately Kronos is already taken - it's the Klingon homeworld (though they can't spell it right...) But we don't have to use greek names. Why don't we just call it Revan. That would be new. Or, for those of you who have seen "Titan A.E.", we could call it planet Bob... Disclaimer: This post is too silly to have been written by me. Therefore I did not write it and you did not read it - these aren't the droids you're looking for. Move along

Can you give an overview of what combat options you want in your game? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Didn't really have it all figured, but basically it was about choosing a stance from which to perform your attack, only each of them would leave in a position, where you would be vulnerable to certain counterattacks, so that a good warrior would want to know lots of them and thus avoid being as vulnerable. You would only be allowed to perform certain attacks from certain stances until you improved your attack forms, and only be allowed to switch from certain offensive postures to certain defensive positions until you learned to master those too. For example, one warrior could be caught in one disadvantageous position after his attack, especially if it failed (didn't hit or was parried), and might not be able to reposition into a good defensive position before the enemy took advantage of it. With greater skill he could switch between these positions easier. I also wanted a Counterattack skill that would allow you an extra upon a succesful parry. It would work like this - if the enemy attacked you and you parried rather well (depending on die result and skill level), you could make an immediate counterattack on the assumption that you had opened your opponents defense with your parry. However, if you did this with a sword, you would make the attack of whichever was lower of your sword skill and your counterattack skill. The enemy would still get to parry, though, and could also make his own counterattack, if he succeeded well, meaning that very experienced warriors would be able to make a lot of counterattacks in a very short time. Hmm, any of that make sense, or should I rephrase?

What? Because I quoted from the film? Surely not. The film was a major hit in both countries. I cannot believe anyone takes this stuff that seriously.

I certainly did in my first game as LS male. So I'd have to agree with... Unabomber? Gee, how often does that happen?

Honestly, how anyone can take offense at Cleese's comments is beyond me. The whole thing is so wonderfully absurd to me that it's a pure joy to read. But then again, I'm a Python-fan, and absurdity is what Pythonesque humor is all about. I love that he says there will be a questionnaire to see whether anyone noticed the change Gee, now I'm thinking back to all the American/English bashing in "A Fish Called Wanda"... Otto: "You know what the problem is with you English? You don't like winners..." Leach: "Winners?" Otto: "Yes. Winners!" Leach: "Winners like... North Vietnam?" Otto: "SHUT UP!! We did NOT lose Vietnam - it was a tie!!" Hilarious... I recommend the film. And don't think it's all America bashing - there's plenty that goes the other way too EDIT: But I'd agree with Mr. Cleese about point 15 - it's driving me crazy too

For me it's Vader first. I mean, this guy strangles his own admirals... Nasty! Second would be Nihilus. Very cool, but wasted potential in K2. Third? Not sure. I love Palpatine/Sidious (or maybe it's just Ian McDiarmid's acting), but Kreia is the most lovable manipulative b****, while Sion is just spooky and hauting to even think about.

You're welcome. I guess I just love speculating about the surprises they have in story. Not that I like games that are intentionally mysterious and deliberately leave things vague and unsaid. But I don't get that impression in K2.

I think you should bring this to the attention of the Restoration Project. I don't know that stuff was cut here, but given that it seems incomplete, it might be a possibility. Anyone know of voice files on this subject that are unused?

Kreia: "You come with questions... [*sigh*] Ask, and I will answer." Exile: "Fine. How quick can my lightsaber cut that smugness out of your voice?"

If you really want a total spoiler and quick guide to all the game's secrets, then just check the FAQ/Walkthrough by Dan Simpson. It's the most detailed and comprehensive guide/spoiler to the game I've seen, but be aware that you'll spoil the game completely. You have been warned. You can find the guide here.

SLA core mechanics meets GURPS character creation.. A match made in heaven. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's the sort of thing I was toying with in my homebrewed rules. I ran into trouble with the combat system, though, because I found it difficult to create a combat system that had enough options to be both fast and strategic. How do you reconcile genuine combat options with a fast-paced battle resolution mechanic?

Agreed, but it's the way Kreia puts it after the escape, as you mentioned above, from Peragus that I question. Kreia: "You were difficult to find, but... coincidence was on our side. When I learned that you were on the vessel, I knew the Sith would not be far behind. When we intercepted the Harbinger, it was crippled, drifting in space. It was a simple matter to board the vessel and rescue you. Unknown to me, however, the Sith were already on board. Just as we made the jump to hyperspace, they fired upon us, nearly destroying the Ebon Hawk" Now, noting what the Harbinger's captain says in his logs, the part about the Ebon Hawk finding the Harbinger drifting in space is clearly less than true. She certainly knew that the Sith were there, since she had just been attacked by them herself and then played dead on the Ebon Hawk. The log mentions that T3 was badly damaged, yet T3 is fine during the prologue, and I doubt the Harbinger crew repaired him, so now I'm beginning to wonder if Kreia didn't lie about the whole thing and manipulated it to her advantage. First she approaches the Harbinger, but then Sion's warship attacks the Ebon Hawk and damages it, killing most of the crew. The Ebon Hawk sends out a distress call and the Harbinger responds, arriving on the scene timely enough to stop the Sith attack, since the warship is now outgunned. Now Kreia sees a chance to manipulate the circumstances to her advantage. She realizes that the Sith will now attempt deception and stealth over confrontation and capture the Harbinger that way, so she tries to do the same. She switches off T3 and then plays dead until the the Harbinger is brought aboard the Harbinger, and then she waits until the Sith make their move. In the ensuing confusion, she hurries to find the Exile and brings him aboard the Ebon Hawk, turns T3 back on and then flees the Harbinger. HK-50 just barely manages to get aboard. The Sith have now taken control of the Harbinger, though, and fires at the Ebon Hawk just as it makes the jump to Hyperspace, causing massive damage to the ship and knocking out Kreia, who slips into her healing meditation. T3 then saves the ship as we see in the prologue.

Sometimes you just have to speak with a different tongue ... as for IT ... IT was lost long ago in a distant land known as the Black Isle 41682074686520706F776572206F66204F6374616C206E6F772062726F7567687420746F20796F75 0696E20486578203A4400 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I can see it now: "Fionavar - the Matrix has you..." :D

Hey, no need to apologize. I honestly see the fact that you take inspiration from my own plot as praise, especially when you credit me for it up front. All the plots we have suggested have been criticized one way or another (including my own), but between us we might think of something good. As for your Myrkr plot, I think you should detail it a bit more, particularly the signficance of the Ysalamiri. It doesn't seem to come across clearly that they prevent force powers, which should probably be a high point of the adventures on Myrkr. I like Grudo Tan, though. We don't have nearly enough "good" rodians in Star Wars. Hadn't thought of settlers on Myrkr myself, but I don't see a problem with it. Still think the native Neti should be mentioned at some point. That doesn't fit well with Sadow's known history, but we can make up excuses for it. For example that a jedi found the holocron and was hunted by the Sith and was then shot down over Myrkr and crashlanded. Or the Sith could have found it and been hunted to Myrkr by the jedi. The hunters then went down to the planet, but because their force powers were lost to them, both sides were killed by the vornskrs and the holocron lost. The Sith are on Myrkr because they are looking for it. The jedi have known about its presence here for a while (which is why the PC knows), but they left it there thinking that it would best be prevented from abuse by the Sith on a force-empty world. The current crisis has changed that, however, and now the jedi need to find the holocron before the Sith do.

Kreia will always turn up at that point whether you took her in the active party or not. So yes, you "fail" even then. It's not a failure, though - it's a significant event of the story, the outcome of which is dictated by the plot.

Yes Well, at least as far as Kreia is concerned

Nobody would have even asked question of whether KotOR was a waste when K1 was still on its high. The problem comes with the fact that K1 was really an exclusive game with a definite ending, which they then wanted to do a sequel to. Given how different the DS and LS endings of K1 are, it's a real bitch trying to fit it all together in one succeeding storyline. In that sense I think K2 succeeded, though. I don't agree with those who criticize K2 for its plot. I thought the plot was strong and deep and had interesting characters. It speaks volumes to me that *everybody* really hates Kreia. Nobody likes or admires her. That tells me she was a triumph of a character as the sly manipulator. And the plot of her intentions is complex and interesting in my eyes. The problem with K2 is that it's open-ended. It does not have a clear-cut "hero wins, gets the girl (or guy) and saves/rules the galaxy"-ending like K1. That makes it less epic than its predecessor or at least seem to be. I don't agree that this makes the plot weak or boring, though. I do agree that the plot was cut to pieces by the cut content, however. But I cannot criticize the underlying plot on that basis. It wasn't the plot but the execution that was disappointing to me. And K2 has left a lot of unanswered clues to what might happen in a K3. No, I'm not talking about the cut content, but things that are and were always meant to mysterious and ambiguous in K2. There are clues in there to what might happen next. I've analyzed a few of these on these boards, and I honestly can't wait to play K3 and see whether I was right or not. To me that doesn't make KotOR a waste in the least. It does make it difficult for me to tell whether K2 was good or not before I see K3, though.

I've actually heard that conversation from HK-47, this the above part I had forgotten. Thanks for pointing it out. Seems Revan did indeed sabotage HK-47 on purpose, which also serves to explain why he is damaged in the cargo hold of the Ebon Hawk. As for Kreia's statement that the Ebon Hawk boarded the Harbinger and retrieved the Exile, I consider her comments to be something less than truthful given what the captain of the Harbinger notes in his log: Crewman: "Everyone on the Ebon Hawk was dead, sir... we're starting autopsies within the hour." Captain: "What about that Sith corpse we retrieved from the warship? Crewman: "'We haven't had a chance to fully examine it, sir - he looks human, but he's... fractured in several places.' Captain: "Keep me posted. Something's wrong here, and I want to know where all those Sith on the warship went." Another log tells us: Captain: "Report." Crewman: 'The Sith warship is empty, sir - we attached a umbilical and sent three strike teams through it, and there's no sign of a crew... or its commander.' Captain: "There's no one on board? What about the escape pods?" Crewman: "They're still in their berths, sir - this place, it's empty - it's like a ghost ship." Captain: "Then who was firing at the freighter?" Crewman: "We don't know, sir - the freighter's empty, too, we did a clean sweep, and nothing except a lone T3 unit, badly damaged. Did you still want it tractor beamed to the Harbinger?" Captain: "Search the freighter and the warship one more time - if they're clean, then we'll tractor the freighter over." Crewman: "Yes, sir." Captain: {To himself, a little quieter}"No idea why the admiral thought that freighter worth all the effort, but we'll find out." Now, from this it is quite clear that there was a battle between the Ebon Hawk and Sion's Sith warship, that the Ebon Hawk was damaged, and that the Harbinger arrived just in time to interrupt the battle before the Sith could capture, destroy or board the Ebon Hawk. Now, the Harbinger is a pretty heavily armed ship, I think. If you look at the end battle of K1, you'll see that the Harbinger is the same class of ship that the Republic uses as capital ships during the battle to destroy the Star Forge (same type of ship that Dodonna and Vandar were on). That being the case, the Sith warship probably found itself outgunned, so instead they activated their stealth units and infiltrated the Harbinger. Besides, they were here for the "last Jedi" too and probably always intended to lure the Harbinger into a trap. When the Ebon Hawk showed up, however, they had to remove the "competition". Note that the Harbinger received a distress call from the Ebon Hawk being under attack, which doesn't fit with what Kreia tells the Exile.

Well, the Exile could have 'succeeded' in Kreia's eyes by reaching the conclusion that the choice of the individual would always have more significance than the will of the Force itself, and that all the power the Jedi and Sith gain through the Force is therefore ultimately hollow and unimportant, since they're just being used by the will of the Force. But naturally, you don't get the option to say anything like that.