| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14036
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 3:02 am Post subject: |
 |
|
The first aid/medicine level may be off, but i do know for certain he always had 3 med packs..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 3:26 pm Post subject: ! |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | Ok let's look at atgxtg's Jedi samaritan example. For ease of writing, to avoid long quoting, and because I find it funny: A = atgxtg, B = Bren, and C = crmcneil.
What happens? The Jedi PC gives a child food. The child dies.
A and C seem perturbed that B hypothesized that the Jedi in the example might either (i) have had some indication through the force of danger or (ii) known that he has an enemy who might use poison to kill him and thus may be some responsibility for the child's death. |
That is becuase the situation was defined by A, and B appeared to automatically assume things that were not given as part of the situation.
A's argument is based around the concept of the Jedi not knowing that the food was poisoned and that he gave it to the child as a kindness, maybe even to prevetn the child from starving to death. That was the conditions as A defined them.
Now, if those conditions are altered, and the Jedi is aware that something is wrong with the food, or has a good reason to suspect he food, then A's argument that intent being the deciding factor would now put blame on the Jedi.
| Quote: |
People are doing a lot of interpretation and A and C seem to like their interpretations best. No surprise there. People naturally like their own interpretation best. I often like my interpretations best.  |
Intperesting the ruls is one thing. Interpreting the conditions set in the example is something else. In order for us to discuss this, or any, topic we must deal in the same terms and conditions.
| Quote: |
How would this actually play out in a face-to-face table-top RPG? |
Hopefully much better that it is playing out here!
[/quote]
First the PC would not know the child is starving at first glance. The child may look hungry, malnourished, etc. but that does not necessarily equal starving. However a Jedi could use something like life sense to determine the child is actually starving. But that is a detail A did not provide. In his description, A jumped straight to the child is starving. Is this in-game knowledge or metagame knowledge? I can't tell. But since we are given no indication the Jedi did any of those things, I guess it must be out-of-character knowledge.[/quote]
Yes, the deails set up are mostly "out of character knowledge". From the Jedi perspective, he would see a child that looks malnourished and hungry. And the Jedi decides to give some food to that child.
| Quote: |
Second we are told the food is poisoned by someone after the Jedi. How does the PC know that? No detail is provided. The Jedi could have it analyzed, could do some tests - maybe even on himself if he has detoxify poison, but none of those things are mentioned and we don't know that any of that happened. Yet suddenly some folks have the Jedi chasing down the assassin. How did the Jedi know the food was poisoned and how did he even know there was an assassin? Is this game knowledge or metagame knowledge? Again, I can't tell. But we are given no information about the Jedi doing anything to ascertain that there was a poisoner, so I guess he doesn't know this either. |
Again, this is out of character knoweldge. As far as the Jedi is concerned, notingis wrong with the food he is carrying. This is implied by the conditions set, as a Jedi would be unlikely to be carrying around poisoned food or handing it out. Although I suppose a really oddball case could be made for the Jedi practicing euthanasia on the child to end his suffering.
But, the intent of the consitions were that the Jedi does not know that the food is poisoned at the time he gives it to the child. He might not even know afterwards. That is not relevant to the situation. If the Jedi finds out about the poison after the fact, or never finds out about it, doesn't not change his motivations at the time he commited the act.
| Quote: |
I speculated that the Jedi might have prior knowledge that he has annoyed someone who is known to use poison. That seemed to me to be consistent with the fact that the Jedi somehow knows the child was poisoned and that there is a poisoner to pursue. That didn't seem a huge logical leap since in RPGs the PCs often make enemies and know that they have made enemies. It is often a key plot point. In game knowledge? It doesn't seem unreasonable to me, but I can't tell since like nearly everything else we aren't given any information about this. |
Well, under those condtions, the Jedi might be neglient in giving out the food. But if the Jedi suspected that his food was poisoned, why would he be carrying it around?
| Quote: |
The player knows the GM didn't give him a clear warning of danger - or at least no mention of a warning is given in the short description. Clearly knowing that the GM didn't give a warning is out of game knowledge. In game there is no GM. There is the Force. The PC doesn't recall knowing there was danger. Fine. But is that because the Jedi wasn't calm enough? His mind wasn't still enough to gain knowledge from the force? There is a good chance that in-game the PC doesn't know the answer to this question. OK, what then? |
Nope. In the game, the Force acts as a moral compass. A player is supposed to be given a warning when he is about to commit evil. This is so that a player doesn't get get hosed when the Gms intepretation of evil is differernt that his own.
In the Star Wars universe, the Jedi have the Force to guide them, and it autmatically and correctly determines if something is evil and drawing the character to the Dark Side.
Inthe RPG, we only have a GM, who is a person, and no two people see things exactly the same. Hence the warning. Something that is permissible under one GM , might net a DSP under another, so the warning ensures that the players get a fair shake.
| Quote: |
If it was my PC, my PC might be concerned about how he missed something this important. After all the deadly food was right in the palm of his hand. How could he possibly be a Jedi and miss that? To me those are possible in-character responses based on what we know that the Jedi knows. Now it seems that other folks appear to want to just short circuit all that because OOC the player and the GM already know there was a poisoner responsible for the poison food and that the poisoner was after the Jedi. |
Well, your PCs must be allknowlng. You seem to believe hat the Jedi in this situation should have known about the posion. The idea that there is something going on that your PC didnt know about seems to stick in yor craw.
| Quote: |
I said that we should look at the result along with other factors. |
No. Results and other factors don7t apply. Only the Jedi's intent.If the child lives, dies,. wins the lottry, or if Alderraan suddenly blows up have no bearing on what the Jedi did or why he did it.
| Quote: |
description of intention is the only or best guide, then it doesn't matter if their is a dead child, a dead rat, or no death at all. And that seems a very peculiar form of ethics to me. |
Really. Why? The ethics are about the Jedi's intent and behavior. The results are beyond the Jedi's abilty to control. For example, if everybody of he planet other than the Jedi dropped dead right after the Jedi gave the child the food is the Jedi somehow at fault?
I think you are not paying attention to the intent part. If the Jedi did soemthing with good intent then the results should be clear. If the Jedi was handing out food that he know or had good reason to suspect as being poisoned, then his intent isn't pure.
| Quote: |
Jedi have a lot of power in SW. And with that power, I think they should have a lot of responsibility. That's one of the reasons that I as a GM don't feel required to hold the Jedi player's hand at every step of the way and act as an extra conscience warning them of every chance of a DSP before they act. Even though the RAW suggests that. Given that in 10 years of play there have been a total of I think 3 DSPs acquired by 4-5 Jedi in our SWU - I think my system works pretty well and isn't unfair to the players or to their characters. You are of course free to have different opinions. |
It isn7t hand holding. It's l cluing the players in on how you are running the Force. For instance, in this situation given here, some of us would get DSps if you were running and not know why.
| Quote: |
I am curious, A, why you seem to feel that only concious, active evil should result in a DSP? |
Becuase if it isn7t a conscious decison, it isn't evil. If a character does something that ends up having a terrible result that he wasnt aware of, he isn7t being evil.
For example, if a boy scout, out of the kindness of his heart, helps and old lady across the street, and as a result the old lady gets home 5 minutes eailier, and surpises a burglar who was ransacking the place, and the burgular kils her, the boy scout didn't do evil. That is why results shouldn7t apply.
It seems to me that you got some players who lie to you about their actions and you are trying to find a way to catch them in the act.
| Quote: |
I haven't re-read the rules this month, but I thought that failing to try to prevent evil action also resulted in a DSP. Am I misrecalling this, or is there some reason you choose to ignore that part of the RAW while maintaining the warning requirement of the RAW? |
We don7t ignore it. But we state that the RAW is inprecise here. Lotsof evil gets done every day,and a Jedi can't try to prevent all of it. So if a Jedi were held accountable for every bit of evil that he fails to try to stop, he7d rack up DSps and turn to the Dark Side within the hour.
And there are bound to be situations where by trying to stop one evil, the Jedi allows or even commits another. Those catch 22 situatins would automatically result in a DSP if you are intrpeting the RAW that way. A Sith could foribly convert any Jedi to the Dark Side over the weekend just by casuing two evil actions at the same time.
And Jedi wouldn't not be able to accomplish anything, since they would constantly be sidetracked by other acts of evil.
Nor could the Jedi coexist with the Republic. They would constantly be forced to step in and dey the law when the law was going to permit evil to occur. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: |
From what i remember, he DID set it up sort of a catch 22, but it was also to show the player of jedi, being all powerful DOES have its drawbacks, as there WILL inevitably be situations that crop up that you might be "damned if you do, Damned if you don't"... |
No, what he showed the player was that playing under that Gmhas it's drawbacks. If the GM sets a PC up in a situation where the PC has no chance of avoiding a DSP, the fault lies in the GM.
| Quote: |
Was he on a mission? No. The Imps had come to the planet the pc's were hiding out on after they got done with a mission, trying to track them down. So he was staying "under cover" to stay off their radar.
Would using Accel heal have marked him? Yes since the imp forces had jedi seakers amongst their ranks. |
So the PC Jedi had to decide between letting those who were wounded die, or exposing himself, and possibly the other PCs, and possibly other rebels whom the PCs could comprosie under torture. That's a tough call.
If the Jedi is going to get a DSP every time he fails to try and prevent evil, then Obi-wan and Yoda would have been consumed by the Dark Side becuase of all the evil the Empire did. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14036
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | garhkal wrote: |
From what i remember, he DID set it up sort of a catch 22, but it was also to show the player of jedi, being all powerful DOES have its drawbacks, as there WILL inevitably be situations that crop up that you might be "damned if you do, Damned if you don't"... |
No, what he showed the player was that playing under that Gmhas it's drawbacks. If the GM sets a PC up in a situation where the PC has no chance of avoiding a DSP, the fault lies in the GM.
| Quote: |
Was he on a mission? No. The Imps had come to the planet the pc's were hiding out on after they got done with a mission, trying to track them down. So he was staying "under cover" to stay off their radar.
Would using Accel heal have marked him? Yes since the imp forces had jedi seakers amongst their ranks. |
So the PC Jedi had to decide between letting those who were wounded die, or exposing himself, and possibly the other PCs, and possibly other rebels whom the PCs could comprosie under torture. That's a tough call.
If the Jedi is going to get a DSP every time he fails to try and prevent evil, then Obi-wan and Yoda would have been consumed by the Dark Side becuase of all the evil the Empire did. |
Lets see.. Poss capture/torture over getting DSP for being selfish and staying hidden... That's how it looked to me. And the gm at the time.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is it too late to ask for this derailed thread to get back on track? Maybe the off-topic giant quote war could be it's own thread do I don't have to read it?
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It seemed to me that atgxtg was arguing that only a concious evil action resulted in a DSP. It seemed he was arguing that as a general rule not only in the context of the poison food example. (Which is why I directed the question to him and not both of you.) I was talking about the general case, not the poison food example. Giving a DSP only for evil acts is contrary to my understanding of the raw.
| Quote: | | In essence, you seem to be proposing that a Jedi receive a DSP as a result of a failed dice roll, or simply by GM decree (or GM error). |
That is not what I am proposing, but it does seem that is what is coming across to you and others.
I favor looking at stated intent and the result of the action rather than just looking at stated intent. What I am proposing is that looking at the result of an action is sometimes a better indicator of character intent that just listening to what the player says the character's intent was. I am saying no less than that and I am saying no more than that.
I still don't like a GM imposed Willpower roll to gain a DSP. I am perfectly happy with a player imposed willpower roll to help the player figure out if their character is uncontrollably angry - which if the PC is may well result in a DSP. The difference is who decides to use a willpower mechanic - the player or the GM. I favor the player, in large part because I apparently play with a pretty good group of players and also because as a player I like controlling my characters actions. With some exceptions, I think players have a better handle on character motivations than GMs.
On the other hand, as a GM, I realize that some players either don't have a good handle on their character's emotions or that they may be inclined either consciously or unconsciously to rationalize their actions after the fact to avoid a DSP. Therefore as a GM, I look at the entire situation in deciding what the character's true (as possibly opposed to the stated by the player) intent was or is. And thus whether the intent and action should get a DSP.
Personally I don't see intent as the only litmus test for a DSP. A character may have angry feelings, what gets him a DSP is not feeling angry, but acting on that anger. Part of the act is the result of the act. If a character is so ineffective that his attempt to strike someone down in anger totally flubs up, I might not give him a DSP bacause as a GM I might interpret the bad roll as the character not being fully committed to the angry action and hence his intent is not evil. But of course, most likely I would give an unturned player a DSP.
But I find that most of these decisions work best as an evolving discussion between player and GM. I think setting hard and fast rules out of context is not very helpful. YMMV.
Again, regarding whether the act and intent or only the intent should matter, personally I make it harder for those that have turned to evil to earn a new DSP/FP. That can't just try to do evil, they have to actually succeed in doing evil in a dramatically apppropriate way. To me that helps explain why the bad guys may go to some effort to set up a dramatic situation (that contains a choice and possibly a way out) rather than just efficiently killing the PCs. The bad guys aren't exactly being stupid, they are just trying to rack up a few more FPs/DSPs.
| Quote: | | Is it too late to ask for this derailed thread to get back on track? Maybe the off-topic giant quote war could be it's own thread do I don't have to read it? |
Apparently.  Sorry. I saw you post after I had already posted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | Apparently. Sorry. I saw you post after I had already posted. |
No problem. I was just getting tired of the quote war.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think we are all getting tired of the quote war. 
Back to the original topic. I don't use the D6 Fantasy, Space, etc. rules, but from a few posts I saw over on the WEG Fan Site it seems at least one of the games has some kind of wound levels or something so that a big animal like say a Rancor might be able to take more wounds than a human. In other words a Rancor might have more than wound levels than Wounded and Wounded x 2. If I understood the idea, whereas according to the RAW if you are wounded and then wounded again you go to woundedx2. Another wound and you go to incapacitated. So for a human the wound track looks like Wnd, Wndx2, Inc, Mor Wnd, Dead
A big creature might have a wound track that looks like Wnd, Wndx2, Wndx3, Wndx4, Inc, Mor Wnd, Dead.
Seems like a possible approach to make big creatures harder to kill (for medium levels of damage) without being impossible to kill.
This is actually very similar to what I do in ship-to-ship combat in Star Wars.
Anyone more familiar with D6 rules feel free to correct any errors I may have made in depicting this system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: |
A big creature might have a wound track that looks like Wnd, Wndx2, Wndx3, Wndx4, Inc, Mor Wnd, Dead. |
My initial reaction is that an injury that is a wound to a rancor is death and dismemberment to a human, and that therefore this idea makes no in-universe sense. That said, my initial reaction isn't infallible. I can see the benefit of this system if used with a creature of the appropriate strength level, but maybe multiple wound levels may not be the best application of this idea. At -3D or -4D, a beastie wouldn't end up rolling near as much, and this could lead to a major fall-off and anti-climax towards the end of a fight. I might nix additional wound penalties after Wounded Twice so a critter keeps fighting strong until the end...
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, it probably makes sense to stop the penalties at -2D despite the number of wounded results.
A wound to a 7D rancor will kill a 3D human since it probably is doing 8D-9D damage. That doesn't change with this modification. What changes is if you are able to wound the Rancor 3 times - say by hitting him three times for 8D-9D damage* each time - rather than having the Rancor become incapped, the Rancor is still up and fighting (though with the -2D penalty you suggest). You have to hit the Rancor with maybe 5 wounded results to incap him.
And just to be clear, if you are able to do enough damage in one shot to incap, mortally wound, or kill the Rancor he goes straight past the extra wound levels to that result.
* Note that any one of these hits although a wound to the Rancor would kill a normal human outright. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | Yes, it probably makes sense to stop the penalties at -2D despite the number of wounded results.
A wound to a 7D rancor will kill a 3D human since it probably is doing 8D-9D damage. That doesn't change with this modification. What changes is if you are able to wound the Rancor 3 times - say by hitting him three times for 8D-9D damage* each time - rather than having the Rancor become incapped, the Rancor is still up and fighting (though with the -2D penalty you suggest). You have to hit the Rancor with maybe 5 wounded results to incap him.
And just to be clear, if you are able to do enough damage in one shot to incap, mortally wound, or kill the Rancor he goes straight past the extra wound levels to that result.
* Note that any one of these hits although a wound to the Rancor would kill a normal human outright. |
Yeah. That seems good.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Considering how hard it is to wound a rancor in the first place, doesn't this just makes thing worse?
The rancor is already shrugging off lots of minor wounds by beating the damage roll with it's STR. Letting it take mutiple WND results is just going to make the creature even harder for anyone but a Jedi to deal with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | Considering how hard it is to wound a rancor in the first place, doesn't this just makes thing worse? |
Yes. It does.
It makes the most sense (to me) to implement something like this along with a change such as treating damage more like first edition rules, so that if 2 x damage is greater than or equal to soak the target is stunned.
The thing I find more incredible with a Rancor (and many beasts) is the (ridiculously) high bonus to damage for claws and teeth. Many/most wild animals would barely last a round or two with another member of their species in any kind of mating ritual battle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
]Yes. It does.
It makes the most sense (to me) to implement something like this along with a change such as treating damage more like first edition rules, so that if 2 x damage is greater than or equal to soak the target is stunned. |
I agree with the later. The 2x stun rule is one of the things I miss the most from 1E. I'd like to see something like:
Damage
<1/2 STR = No Effect
1/2 STR = Stun
.STR = Wound
1.5xSTR= INC
2x STR= Mortally Wounded
3xSTR= Killed
| Quote: |
The thing I find more incredible with a Rancor (and many beasts) is the (ridiculously) high bonus to damage for claws and teeth. Many/most wild animals would barely last a round or two with another member of their species in any kind of mating ritual battle. |
Yeah. And yet another place where D&Y SW could benefit from taking a rule or two from EABA. In EABA there is a damage cap for living organizms. It reflects that muscle, and flesh can only hit so hard. There IS a way around this in EABA (larger than life) but it is an optional rule that is applied on a case by case basis, and could help for things like Zilla beasts of giant space slugs.
I think most melee damages are too high. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
