Jump to content
D6 Online 3.0

RoloGutwein

Members
  • Content Count

    95
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About RoloGutwein

  • Rank
    Member: Rank 1 ( 45% )
  • Birthday 12/29/1970

Converted

  • Location
    Jacksonville, Florida

Converted

  • Interests
    Gaming (Duh), Video Gaming, Movies, Design/Drawing

Converted

  • Occupation
    Art Director/Graphic Designer
  1. I plan on doing my own stats (though based on D6, of course). And thanks, Lee. I like the term 'Environmental'.
  2. I'm putting together my own compendium of Star Wars creatures from the movies/game/novels. Trying to sort them into a few different categories that are 'gaming friendly'. Right now I have: Dangerous: This category covers creatures that are (or can be) lethally dangerous to characters (things like Nexu, Krayt Dragons, etc.) Pest: This covers creatures that can be dangerous in large numbers or can otherwise be a nuissance to most characters (things like Womp-Rats, Dinkos, etc.) Semi-Sentient: This covers creatures that are almost sentient (i.e. Kowakkian Monkey Lizards, Wampas, etc.) Domestic: Animals that are typically domesticated (or at least were mostly shown that way in the films) (things like Banthas, Eopies, Tauntauns, etc.) Force: Creatures with some connection to the Force (like Ysalamir, Terentatek, etc.) Mythical/Extinct: Creatures of legend or those that once existed (like the Mandalorian Mythosaur or Durosian Cannibal Arachnid) Odd: Strange creatures that don't seem to fit in well in other categories (like the Beldon or Colossus Wasp) Background: A catch all term for 'normal' wild animals that aren't specifically dangerous unless cornered/provoked. The term 'background' is used because these animals are typically only 'used' in a campaign for background color. (this would include things like Gorgs, Woolamanders, Hawkbats, etc.) Do these categories make sense to you? Can you think of any others? Can you think of better names for some of the categories? Especially the 'Background' group, that one just sounds weak to me. Any thoughts or suggestions would help a lot. Thanks.
  3. It seems we're all in agreement so far. I like to keep things within the min/maxes, but I don't hold character templates as 'set in stone'.
  4. In the early days of the WEG Star Wars RPG they released a lot of individual adventure modules (Battle for the Golden Sun, Tatooine Manhunt, Strike Force: Shantipole, etc.). These were (relatively) thin books detailing a particular single adventure. Towards the end of their run, WEG produced a lot of 'Adventure Collections' (Politics of Contraband, Supernova, etc.), containing several adventures that were sometimes interconnected. As a gamer, which of these formats did you prefer? Or did you have no preference? Or did you rely solely on adventures of your own design? And Why? Also, if you have a favorite module or adventure compilation, which was it? I'll start the 'game' by stating my own preference: I personally enjoyed the individual modules more than the compilations. Part of the reason for this may just be nostalgia for modules in other game systems or the feeling that this is 'how it should be done'. But to me it seemed that the individual modules received more 'attention' from their creators (and/or editors) than those in a compilation. On the whole, they seemed to stand up better on their own. It may just be a subjective thing, but to me, many of the adventures found in compilations were rather weak or even 'sketchy'- which maybe explained why they were released as part of a collection. That having been said, I know that pretty much every module I played was, in some way, modified to suit my own campaign and gaming tastes (but then, I imagine that's true of most people's games). I did write and run quite a few of my own adventures during my campaign (and continue to do so), but a LOT of memorable moments of my group happened during the 'pre-written' adventures. They really became a part of the 'mythos' of my group. As far as which module was my favorite- it is Tatooine Manhunt. This was the first adventure I picked up for the game and it captured me like no other. A close second to this would be Black Ice, which was probably one of the most 'epic' adventures written for the D6 game.
  5. Though I've already said that I don't have much trouble with them in my own campaign, I will point out some of what I consider 'top offenders' from a tech viewpoint. I'll talk more about individual items rather than books, because the tech manuals do have quite a few well-balanced and interesting gadgets in them. But here are the ones I dislike: Decksweeper Blaster. Any weapon that gives an automatic chance to hit I just don't like. Period. Doesn't matter that it's short ranged. Power-Armor. Any of the various suits in Galladinium's. This is a more subjective thing, since I feel that power-armor would greatly change the 'feel' of Star Wars if it became a dominant thing in a campaign. Coynite Armor. 150cr for 2D/2D Physical/Energy Protection. Even if it is rare and 'available only on its planet of origin'- and isn't given to non Coyns and whatever other restrictions you put on it. You're telling me the Empire wouldn't go in there and steal/take that tech for its own troops if it only costed 150cr? Unless that's just a typo. In which case.. meh. Okay. And even if the real price was 1500, that's still better than a lot of comparable armor. Other than that, my objections are mostly of a nitpicky nature (though, looking at the above, they might be consider nit-picks, too).
  6. @Bren Nope, you pretty much encapsulated my best theory for the static nature of Star Wars tech. They are on a plateau where innovations are relatively small and far between. If you think of our own human history, there are eras (like the ones you pointed out, Bren) in which the basic technology doesn't really change at all. It is just difficult for us to imagine something like that because of the way things have changed in the last 100 years.
  7. Again, I find my opinions on technology in Star Wars (and the general lack of technological innovation implied by the movies) to be pretty close to what Whill said. If you're interested in my own (longer) view on the matter, check this link: http://starwarsdakota.blogspot.com/2009/02/technological-plateau-of-star-wars.html But the short version is, that in our current time of incredible leaps and bounds of technology it is difficult to imagine a world where things pretty much stay the same for generation after generation. But to me, that seems to be the way of Star Wars, and honestly, I like it that way- it again puts the focus on the people and their actions rather than the tech. I wold also point out from a purely 'gamist' perspective that a lot of sourcebooks- particularly those with new weapons/gadgets, were written by a lot of different people, not all of whom gave a lot of thought as to what the introduction of their technology would do to the setting as a whole. So (again like Whill) I always 'screen' the information presented to find what works for me and what doesn't. So in short (too late), I do think we're agreeing- that it's up to the players and GM- together- to decide what's fun for them.
  8. To answer the original question of the post: No, I consider myself lucky that most of my players didn't typically see the the various Technical Manuals as 'gift catalogs' for their characters. While a few items may have struck their fancy from time to time, I can't really think of an instance where any of my folks made it a major issue to go after them. From the above statement you can (and should) infer that I subscribe to the 'Whill theory' ™ of Star Wars gaming. Star Wars is about the characters and the adventures, not about the tech. And to me, a lot of the 'gadgets' in these books would, if allowed by the GM to propagate, turn the setting into something that doesn't reflect the look OR feel of the movies. For me, that's a deal breaker. As far as who a game belongs to, it is not a simple matter of numbers. Even if there is just one GM and multiple players, that GM doesn't 'work for' his players. Unless he's being paid to GM...in which case, someone please sign me up! Err, but I digress. For me, the best kind of roleplaying game is a collaborative effort between a GM and players who at least share a basic idea of the same kind of fun. I'm not saying there shouldn't be diversity of playing styles, or of player goals. Among players, that makes for an awesome campaign with lots of depth, but speaking as a GM, if I simply do not enjoy the preferred style of my players, then I would rapidly lose interest in a game. Not to inflate the role of GM too much, but... typically a game can lose a player or two, but if the GM is out, then that's it.
  9. Honestly, one of the things that bugged me from the original Star Wars RPG was the fact that stats and information for everything was scattered around each sourcebook. I understand WHY this was done with a lot of the information (i.e., as new stuff came out, new books had to be released), but even so, I favor a more unified approach. Even so, I still bounce back and forth between grouping things by 'Type' or by 'Setting'. If I wanted to produce a 'real' RPG (and not just gaming information for myself and my friends), I would probably group things by setting. I.e.: Players Guide (detailing character generation and what players need to know about the system) GM Guide (detailing the core 'rules' of the system and notes on how to use them) Original Trilogy Sourcebook (detailing Organizations, Characters, Races, Droids, Equipment, Vehicles, etc. from Episodes IV-VI) Prequel Trilogy Sourcebook (detailing Organizations, Characters, Races, Droids, Equipment, Vehicles, etc. from Episodes I-III) And from there, I would release things based upon other expanded universe sources. For example: Thrawn Trilogy Sourcebook Rogue Squadron Sourcebook Clone Wars (Cartoons) Sourcebook etc. each of these would have Organizations, Characters, Races, etc. etc. In this way, gamers could pick and choose what 'Expanded Universe' stuff they wanted to include or not- almost as 'plug and play' expansions to the 'baseline' game. However, for my own GAMING use, I actually prefer (and am working on), Sourcebooks based on 'Types'. i.e. Droid Sourcebook Vehicle Sourcebook Alien Sourcebook etc. These are more encyclopedic volumes designed to give you all the information you need to know about each specific 'Type', pulling from movies, expanded universe, my own campaigns/ideas, etc.
  10. A hypothetical question (probably), but say you were 'independently wealthy' and could manage to acquire the license to produce Star Wars RPG gaming products. First of all, would you do so? Second of all, where would you go from there? Would you 'reboot' the whole game? Pick up where WEG left off? What products would you be most excited about making? What formats would your products follow? And yes, this is something I think about every time I play the lottery (like I'm going to today). But I'm curious what you folks would do if you had the option.
  11. Now I totally want to read Grimace's re-write of the prequels. I was already curious when he mentioned the Clone Wars being a series of wars, first with, then against the clones. If anyone knows a link to this, please post! And Whill, I have yet to post on that particular moment (with Maul). But I may very well do that soon. As far as the blog goes, it can be found at: http://starwarsdakota.blogspot.com/ As far as me trying to explain things we see in the movies, here are some specific examples: http://starwarsdakota.blogspot.com/2010/11/shields-and-aerodynamics.html http://starwarsdakota.blogspot.com/2010/10/shields.html http://starwarsdakota.blogspot.com/2010/08/why-snowspeeders.html
  12. Again, yep. In total agreement. In my campaign, the war didn't end with the 'final defeat of the Empire', it ended with a peace treaty with the Imperial 'remnants', who still control quite a sizable chunk of the galaxy, akin to the Corporate Sector and Hutt-Space and other minor-but-significant powers.
  13. Yep. My own campaign universe has turned out in much the same way as Grimace's and Rerun's. After the trials and tribulations of bringing down the Empire- and after one big alien invasion- the New Republic has begun its well-deserved era of peace and prosperity- both by rebuilding what was damaged and by launching new explorations into regions beyond their galaxy. I never minded the whole 'alien invasion' idea. In fact, I liked the concept of it ever since it was first (?) introduced in the 80's marvel comic series. What I didn't like was the WAVE of alien invasions in all the novels. The Ssi-ruk, the Vong, the Swarm War, etc. etc. And I hate the whole concept that the Republic crumbles AGAIN within just a few decades. Bleh. After passing 'through the flame', I figure the Star Was galaxy deserves a new golden age for a while. And you can't tell me there still isn't adventure to be found in an age like that. It just won't be the same KIND of adventure we've already seen.
  14. My Star Wars gaming universe is pretty close to the movie universe. The only major deviations I make from what George Lucas showed on the big screen is the omission of midichlorians and the dismissal of the notion that the Republic had NO standing military at all prior to the clones. I don’t like these concept for reasons I’m sure everyone here has already heard from other people. As far as all the various issues from the re-releases are concerned, I err in favor of the original (i.e. Han shot first). I will say, however, that most things that are NOT shown in the movies are (to me) fair game. For instance, I had player characters involved in the battles of Hoth and Endor- some were even members of the Endor Strike team. Subsequent to my running this, almost all the ‘background characters’ involved have been given names in the Expanded Universe- but as a GM I have no qualms at all about ‘filling in the holes’ of what we do NOT see in the movies with my own group’s adventures. As far as Expanded universe things go, I am much more piecemeal in what I adopt. There are a lot of videogames, novels and comic series out there I just plain do not like, so I do not include them. But even the worst stories can have some redeeming features and bits and pieces I can ‘salvage’ for use in other ways. For instance, I disliked much of the Dark Empire comic series, but still made use of the Galaxy Gun in one adventure. The same piecemeal adoption applies to more recent ‘official’ series such as the Clone Wars animated series (both 2D and 3D). I have been surprised to find quite a few good things in both of these and see no problem weaving it into the background of my own universe. As some have mentioned, there are many fans who need/want explanations of is seen on the screen- to have explanations for all the various holes in the plot (and there are quite a few of them, big and small). To an extent, I want those as well. My own blog is often full of meandering ideas on WHY this or that is so. There are some things, however, that just make no sense (to me at least). Greedo shooting first and missing is one of them (though a minor one). Another would be “why the heck did Darth Maul just stand there and get cut in half by Obi-Wan”. Again, there are dozens of ways you can justify each of these things, but by and large they don’t really impact my gaming universe- for me, its more of ‘game’ to amuse myself and come up with possible/plausible explanations. I should also point out that though my campaign WAS faithful to the movies, it has since progressed FAR beyond Endor and has become something solely of my own making- picking and choosing whatever plotlines I want from the EU. So I guess my multiverse started out as a #1, but ultimately became a #3. All that having been said, if I had to do it all over again, I might try my hand at ‘re-writing’ the prequels- trying to fix all those things that annoyed me, or that I thought could be better if done another way. Again, most of these changes are rather small (in some cases, just an alteration of dialogue). The BIG change I’d want to make, though, is to have Anakin be a Teenager in Episode I- roughly the same age as Padme (15-16). Yes, I know, I’d totally lose the ‘family friendly’ demographic, but hey, I’m not making a movie.
  15. To my knowledge, Star Wars D6 never officially deals with automatic weapon fire. There are a few attempts in some of the peripheral products (I believe Galladinium's Tech book had some rules for some of their weapons). I have long been struggling with how to handle this in my own games. Up until a few weeks ago, I thought that I had finally figured it out. But then I got to thinking more about it and grew dis-satisfied with what I had come up with as being too complex for the fast flow of Star Wars D6. This is the system I had been using up until now: Controlled Burst Fire: This represents firing a burst of 5 rounds (bullets or blaster bolts) at a single target. Under my system, this gives you a +1D to hit. You roll your Blaster (Marksmanship) skill, add 1D, then compare the result as normal to the target's dodge (+cover or other modifiers). If the to-hit roll < defense roll, the burst misses If the to-hit roll >= defense roll, the target is hit with one round If the to-hit roll >= defense roll +5, the target is hit with two rounds If the to-hit roll >= defense roll +10, the target is hit with three rounds etc., up to a maximum of all five rounds hitting the target. You would then roll damage individually for each round that hit. In theory, it seems sound enough, but in practice, it makes for a whole lot of rolling, which is why I am slowly growing disenchanted with it. What I have been considering lately is a modification of it that would go like this: A character firing a burst from a weapon (5-rounds standard) would be allowed to choose whether or not it gives a +1D to hit or +1D to damage. i.e., Were you 'spraying and praying', trying to put a spread of bullets out there in the hopes of hitting with at least one; or were you firing a concentrated burst, trying to hit the target with as many rounds as possible. In general, these are the two reasons people utilize automatic weapons- increasing chances of hitting and/or number of rounds you hit with. To me, this is starting to make more sense in the abstract damage system already in place for Star Wars D6. If you roll well on the damage roll, it means you hit with more rounds. If you roll crappy, it means you hit with less. It is also more streamlined and means only one damage roll. I'm starting to lean more towards this second system than the first- but I wonder now if the Damage bonus of +1D is enough of an advantage for players to ever want to use it in place of the +1D to-hit. Or 'realistically' should it be more like a +2D damage bonus for firing a 'concentrated' burst. The +1D to-hit works for me, as relatively 'realistic'- mostly because automatic weapons (even blasters) tend to jolt off target due to recoil. So there is a balance- yes, you're putting out more bullets, but EACH ONE is not as accurate as a single shot. Thus, the bonus to hit is kept in check by the mechanics of firing a burst itself. So what do you guys think? Which (if either) of these makes more sense to you? And keep in mind I'm only talking about 'controlled bursts' here, not extended bursts/suppressive fire from machineguns/repeating blasters and the like.
×
×
  • Create New...