Jump to content
D6 Online 3.0
Bobmalooga

Abuse of the various technical manuals...

Recommended Posts

Maybe I'm the only one with this problem (then again...) but does anyone else have players that treat the various technical manuals (Fantastic technology and the like...) as though they were the Sears and Roebuck's Christmas Wish-book? It's happen to so frequently to me that I've banned them from use in my upcoming game and told the players that unless it comes out of the Player's book or source book (or I introduce it...) then it doesn't exist.

 

I had one of the offending players want to argue with me and I pointed out that if this technology existed in Star Wars the Rebellion wouldn't have had to struggle so hard to win the war...LOL. He understood what I meant after that, but still...

 

So, has anyone else ran into this sort of problem and if so...what was your creative solution?

 

Keith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely had that problem. Either that or the players who go through the pockets of EVERY person they happen to shoot. Heck, I had one character who got into a shootout with stormtroopers and ended up trying to fleece them of their armor to put together a couple of full sets (with his partner carrying some) to sell on the black market. Not to mention taking every single weapon they find and other such craziness.

 

In my SWSE, it was the same way. Players went through the books and tried to actively search out the tech they saw in there. I told them that they could get them, but everything had a price. One guy got a super blaster that he saw, but I threw in a bit of a hitch... it is a cheaper version and takes twice the ammo. One Jedi character wanted a pair of Imperial Knight gauntlets and purchased them on the Black Market... however, they were just normal materials. He didn't know that until he tried deflecting a blaster bolt with them... hehehe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're kidding, right? What player doesn't look through those books and want some nifty gadget from them? How I got around it was simply by saying that chances are better than good that almost any item in those books either isn't even sold at the place they are, or isn't available. When one cried foul at that idea, I said that if the character wanted them so bad, there was likely more than few other people who also wanted the items. So the rare few that were made were already sold. Thankfully most of my players were logical enough thinkers that they could understand the intricasies of supply and demand and understood that just because they wanted something didn't mean that the item was available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of these guys is the same person who complained about being in the Rebellion and having to take orders from the C.O. NPC...so in this upcoming game I'm making the players the Rebellion of the planet their own. They'll have to form, run, fund and arm their Rebellion all on their own with no support from some other cell or help from some other end of the organization...

 

I'm looking forward to hearing the crying and whining when people don't get their way...LOL

 

Keith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That kind of materialistic mentality sickens me. The game is supposed to be about the story your group makes. You don't need high-powered weapons or other rare equipment to make a good story. Sure they are McGuffins sometimes but in those cases the adventure is built around the PCs acquiring something as opposed to them already posessing it and using it throughout the adventure. The in-character desire to acquire something is natural for some characters, but I find that the characters NOT owning everything makes for better adventuring. There is more adventure in trying to own something than in actually owning it. In general I like to keep my PCs poor.

 

But I'm very honest and open about my views at the begining of a campaign so players know that going into it and can decide if they really want to play in my game or not. In almost every campaign I've ran there was a some point or another in which the PCs were careless and got robbed of all their fancy toys. If that is going to real-life frustruate any players than they shouldn't play in my game. A player's portrayal of his character's desire to gain wealth and possess fancy things should be just playing a role and not the player's desire. Players in my game learn that not owning something can lead to some fun game nights.

 

As a game etiquette rule I don't allow players to have any game books out and in use during play except for what I designate they may need for that adventure. Those technology books have never been needed. I can't stop players from owning them and reading them on their own time, but I feel those are GM books and not for player use. If a PC wants a specific kind of technology then I may use the books for ideas. But no, not everything is going to be available everywhere, and really, nothing exists in my game unless I say it does, so just because it is in a WEG book doesn't mean that it automatically even exists in my game universe to be desired anyway. Some of those technologies are neat but I feel that many of them don't belong in Star Wars. Star Wars is not about high-tech gadgets. The technology is taken for granted, not emphasized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to try to control what kind of game the players played by controlling equipment and such. I eventually got over it. The game ultimately is for the entire group to have fun, not for me to try to force my version of fun onto them. Now I'm much more lenient. Nothing game breaking, but other than that I don't really care what stuff they have, as long as everyone is having fun. Some of the most entertaining games I have run, were all about the characters finding ways to get the stuff they want.

 

Darren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Control is used to avoid the "game breaking" you mention. Control itself isn't a bad thing. Over-control can be limiting and reduce the fun, but at the same time a GM should be able to use control over equipment to avoid having characters with the funds suddenly be "game breaking" characters.

 

Should the character never gain the items? No. But just because they have the money doesn't mean they should be able to buy the items in the various books. More than once I've had players want Coynite Battle Armor. Sure, it's not illegal or even real hard to come buy. And someone with funds might want one or two or more suits of it. Does that mean I should just give the armor to them so they can "have fun"? If a players idea of "having fun" revolves around the gadgets or money they acquire for their character, then they haven't had the proper exposure to what fun a good role playing game can be. It basically is the difference between "roll playing" and role playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If a players idea of "having fun" revolves around the gadgets or money they acquire for their character, then they haven't had the proper exposure to what fun a good role playing game can be. It basically is the difference between "roll playing" and role playing.

 

Lol, its the player's game. As long as everyone is having fun, there is no wrong way to play the game. If they would rather "roll play" than role play, that is fine as long as they are enjoying themselves. Besides if they want to fly all the way to - whatever planet it is - just to buy the Coynite Battle Armor what possible story reason could you have for not allowing them to do it? Like you said, its not that hard to come by.

 

Besides, why should wanting cool toys be frowned upon? Who doesn't want a Ferrari, or the latest and greatest computer? Having cool toys help the player feel unique and special. And since they are the heroes of the story, I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

You can look down your nose at me for feeling that way, but I have no problems letting the players play the type of game they want to play. As long as everyone is having fun.

 

Darren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not looking down my nose at you, I'm just curious what you consider "game breaking"? You mention that you don't allow anything game breaking, but to what end do you consider something game breaking? Does buying the best armor and the best weapon and getting it put on a Nohgri count as game breaking? And when does "game breaking" trump the "fun" that a player wants to experience?

 

And one other thing....it's not just the "player's game". Sure a GM won't have a game without players, but neither will players have a game without a GM. It's everyone's game and it rests on the GMs shoulders to keep it both balanced (for the type of game) and fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess even D6 is not immune to the "roll-playing vs. role-playing" debate, or rather the bogus airs of such. It smacks of the Old World of Darkness vs. every other game. Some players don't want to role-play they truly do want to roll-play, and guess what by allowing them to do just that they find themselves role-playing.

 

Johnny: "Hey, GM I want to buy a Neural Disruptor Shock Baton."

GM: "Sure Johnny, I guess your interest was piqued by that article you read. You do realize that only Master Lopan on Betelgeuse IV makes those?"

Johnny: "Yep, I know that."

GM: "That is pretty far away..."

 

Let's see, the player needs to convince the rest of the players that it is worth trekking halfway across the galaxy. Role-playing ensues. He get's there after having to work up the ladder of contacts via various odd jobs, and missions until finally he gets to meet Master Lopan and requests to purchase one, when he is faced with yet another task. More role-playing ensues. In my experience every time a player roll-plays, is an opportunity to role-play. Each time he provides you with free plot points, hooks, ideas for relevant recurring NPC's all or some of which may matter at later dates, and all of this easily improvised.

 

The whole debate is really about the GM and his ego, not the player. You chose to play a game with a group of people, and I have found when you discover the players, and go with their desires the story you want to get told does get told, it just takes a little longer to get there, and because it is done cooperatively it is different, but usually much richer.

 

In the end who cares if your players have the best equipment in the universe, it can be stolen, chased after, recovered, destroyed, or repurchased. The story the GM wants to get told happens when the players are fulfilling their goals. In other words you get to railroad them and they thank you for it because it is not railroading if you willingly tread that path, or you could just railroad them to satisfy your own ego.

 

*Any references to GM ego is not directed against anyone directly, nor is it intended to be offensive, it is merely used as a description for what I think fuels this age old argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL It's not the crap that they want that bothers me, its the book itself. I'm sick of seeing it brought out like a Christmas catalog...I just had the Empire start using all the stuff from it too as a result. (Outraged whiny player: "Why are the storm-troopers all armed with deck-sweepers?"...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not looking down my nose at you, I'm just curious what you consider "game breaking"? You mention that you don't allow anything game breaking, but to what end do you consider something game breaking? Does buying the best armor and the best weapon and getting it put on a Nohgri count as game breaking? And when does "game breaking" trump the "fun" that a player wants to experience?

 

Buying the best armor and the best weapons and putting them on a Nohgri is not game breaking. In fact it would break immersion if you said it couldn't happen. After all what possible story reason could you have to deny the Nohgri weapons and armor?

 

By my definition game breaking is breaking the story or immersion. Anything else, as long as it is consistent story wise, is fair game. Its their game, if they want a fully decked out Nohgri then let them. Half the fun would be the adventures they would have getting all decked out.

 

And one other thing....it's not just the "player's game". Sure a GM won't have a game without players, but neither will players have a game without a GM. It's everyone's game and it rests on the GMs shoulders to keep it both balanced (for the type of game) and fun.

 

<shrug> There are 4 to 5 players and 1 GM. If a majority of the players want to play a certain type of game, then the GM is over ruled. The GM just has the extra burden of making sure the players are having fun, regardless of whether the play style is his favorite or not.

 

Darren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL It's not the crap that they want that bothers me, its the book itself. I'm sick of seeing it brought out like a Christmas catalog...I just had the Empire start using all the stuff from it too as a result. (Outraged whiny player: "Why are the storm-troopers all armed with deck-sweepers?"...)

 

Lol, turn about is fair play. :-)

 

Darren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good discussion thread; when I encountered this "arms race" problem many years ago, I let it go for one campaign, unbalanced though it was. The next campaign, inspired by the Mos Eisley Starport scenes, I introduced spies and informants. The Empire had started offering rewards for information about suspicious people looking to buy over-the-top kinds of weapons and gear. The Empire learned its lesson from the previous campaign, made a few more restrictions on life in the galaxy, and made life more miserable all around. Ultimately the players learned it was their own characters from the previous campaign that brought it all about, after details of their raid on the Imperial base with their overwhelming firepower got around.

 

Actions have consequences. When you live in a police state, you may find a source supplying that awesome heavy repeating blaster. You may find a seller and buy it. Better move fast after that, though, or a squad of Stormtroopers will be coming aboard your ship to take you and all your friends into custody. If they think you're even a little guilty, then be ready to spend the rest of your days in the spice mines of Kessel. I keep a healthy dose of "Casablanca" in my Star Wars original trilogy setting; that is to say, the guy that sold you the weapon may pocket your credits, then have a friend tip off the Empire that you bought it for the reward money. Who can blame them for double-dipping? If you can't have freedom, maybe money's not a bad substitute. Ben Kenobi said "Before the dark times; before the Empire" so I play on that. Characters are rebels for a reason. Life is nigh-intolerable under the armored boot-heels of the Empire!

 

Outside the original trilogy setting, I don't see it as so great a problem. Jedi are more plentiful, and it does help to "even things up" for the poor schmoes that are not proficient in the use of the Force. My Tales of the Jedi era was an example of that. The non-Jedi were well equipped, and the Jedi saw no need for the burden of the gear since their ally was the Force. I've never dabbled much into gaming the "expanded universe" beyond the Battle of Endor, so while I imagine it could be a problem there I have no direct experience to share.

Edited by Lee Torres

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is something that one of my players wants really badly, then I make them work for it. I enjoy the legality rules from the SWSE. Sure, you have the turbolaser blaster hanging from your hip when you exit your ship. However, do you have the permit for it when stopped by an Imp security patrol? What about that Bounty Hunter in the Cantina that takes a liking to it? Or that pick pocket that just lifted it and is now running out the Cantina door? Also, don't forget that wearing something that size will attract attention, like those thugs that want to make a name for themselves. Hey, isn't that the same kind of pistol from Klarbo the Hutt's personal collection? Maybe, but I heard it was stolen. Someone should tell Klarbo!

 

As for flying halfway across the galaxy for that Coynite Battle Armor... How many pirate raids and Imperial interdictions can you throw in before they realize you don't want them to have the armor? Oh, and when they get to the planet, past the Imperial blockade, don't forget about the people and their possible views of offworlders. Aren't the Coynite the ones who feel it a personal insult to speak to them in a certain way or bump them? That could mean a trip to the arena. Oh, and what if a shop keeper doesn't want to sell a cultural icon to some offworlder because of prejudice?

 

There are many ways to make the players work for what they want. If they just want to buy it and call it good, then they should probably go back to WoW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good discussion thread...

 

Actions have consequences. When you live in a police state, you may find a source supplying that awesome heavy repeating blaster. You may find a seller and buy it. Better move fast after that, though, or a squad of Stormtroopers will be coming aboard your ship to take you and all your friends into custody. If they think you're even a little guilty, then be ready to spend the rest of your days in the spice mines of Kessel. I keep a healthy dose of "Casablanca" in my Star Wars original trilogy setting; that is to say, the guy that sold you the weapon may pocket your credits, then have a friend tip off the Empire that you bought it for the reward money. Who can blame them for double-dipping? If you can't have freedom, maybe money's not a bad substitute. Ben Kenobi said "Before the dark times; before the Empire" so I play on that. Characters are rebels for a reason. Life is nigh-intolerable under the armored boot-heels of the Empire!

 

As always, well put Lee.

 

Control is used to avoid the "game breaking" you mention. Control itself isn't a bad thing. Over-control can be limiting and reduce the fun, but at the same time a GM should be able to use control over equipment to avoid having characters with the funds suddenly be "game breaking" characters.

 

...But just because they have the money doesn't mean they should be able to buy the items in the various books... If a players idea of "having fun" revolves around the gadgets or money they acquire for their character, then they haven't had the proper exposure to what fun a good role playing game can be. It basically is the difference between "roll playing" and role playing.

 

...And when does "game breaking" trump the "fun" that a player wants to experience?

 

And one other thing....it's not just the "player's game". Sure a GM won't have a game without players, but neither will players have a game without a GM. It's everyone's game and it rests on the GMs shoulders to keep it both balanced (for the type of game) and fun.

 

...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.

 

Grimace and RoloGutwein, thanks. I am all about co-creating the campaign with the players. The goal is to come up with a game that everyone approves of (GM and players alike). I don't play in a democracy where simple majority rules, and I never will. Up to 49% of the people could not be happy with the outcome. That is not acceptable to me. I want nothing less than a campaign in which 100% of the players (including the GM) are satisfied. If a player can ONLY find happiness when his PC is rich with gadgets and high-powered weaponry, then that player may not want to play in my game.

 

I think something important to this discussion is the type of gaming societies gamers are a part of. Some groups have a regular game night with the same group of people. They are going to play RPGs no matter what, but exactly what game and type of play is up for vote. If some people are out-voted, they still play anyway. These groups are generally composed of people that feel it is more important to play something than what exactly is being played. If you are out-voted, well, you are still playing. RPGs may more a social gathering of friends than anything else.

 

There is nothing wrong with that if that's why you game, but that is not me. If a player and I can't come to any sort of compromise or agreement on an issue, then the player is simply not required to play. Just the same, if I have a player group and the entire group wants to play a different type of game than I do, then I don't have to run my campaign for them. But this hasn't been much of an issue for me because it occurs to me that most of my players trust that I will do my part to provide a good night of fun for all.

 

Yes, the GM does have a bigger role in making sure everyone has fun, but I am a part of that "everyone" so I've got to have fun too. My goal is 100% of the group has fun, not only 51% of the group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always looked at the Technical Manuals not as a gift catalog, but as an idea list for new hardware and gadgets. Mostly I look at this as a list for the GM, but if a player wants to suggest introducing some item they saw on the list, as the GM I will consider it. If it sounds interesting enough to me, it will show up somewhere. Though possibly in the hands of their opponents rather than in the holonet catalog of Corellia's version of Hammacher Schlemmer.

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.
Very well said. I couldn't agree more. To accomodate my players I will adapt my GM style and campaign tone within the limits that I as the GM find enjoyable. If that isn't fun enough for the players they are welcome to find a GM who better suits their style. Or they can offer to be the GM. Maybe I will like their GM style as a player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had this problem in both regular campaigns and events I run at cons. Last few years I've been running Mongoose Traveller, and had three of the LBB/Pocket Editions spiral bound-covers laminated. I'd have them on the table and say "ok, chapter 2 is about skills you only need the first page, chapter X is about combat, just the beginning to get an idea, oh when we actually gear up nothing over TL 10".

 

First thing they'd do, knowing the chars are pregens, is dive into the equipment like giddy little girls in a barbie doll shop and start asking if they can have <insert something clearly NOT TL 10>" And then try to negotiate. If there were a version available that was TL 10 or less I'd point it out. But still I'd finally have to take the books back and say 'fine, you'll learn as we go'.

 

Now I have their "Book 0". 32 pages of what they need to know, and the most basic of equipment lists possible. They get to ask me about stuff and I just simply tell them the actual tech level. Has worked like a charm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say the primary point of this debate is totally moot. Every single piece of equipment in Star Wars D6 has an availability listing I.E 1, 2, 3, 4 F, R or X

So IMO that's what all GM's should be going by as it is there for a reason and when adhered to that guide line usually fixes a lot of Power Gaming problems with players.

 

As for my games:

During character creation if a player wants something out of the tech manuals and he or she has the money and or equipment to trade and a good reason for having it/ being able to get it, then they get it.

 

During game if the character is in the right place and the availability code is compatible with where they are buying I.E availability 1 which means available practically anywhere, then they get it.

Rarely will I hold back equipment simply because I don't like it, especially if the players are in an area that should have it as per the rules.

 

I have run campaigns where the entire group is on a scout ship and only gets to a space station once every 3 to 6 months so for the 2, 3 and 4 stuff they mostly had to order it through normal or black market channels and then wait until the campaign had them back at the station in order to pick it up (IF it had come in yet).

Again as per the equipment availability guide line

 

In my other games if the PC's are in core to mid rim territories then I have them jump through the proper hoops to get whatever it is they want again as per the availability guide.

 

I also hold them to what kind of character it is they have made and whether or not that giant blaster really makes sense hanging off their Rodian Pacifists hip :-)

 

Basically

In all my campaigns I totally go by the availability codes as I said the "where they are and what they want to buy and does it make sense for your character to have it" guide line to determine if they get whatever piece of equipment it is that they want.

 

As a friend of mine said to me as I was telling him about this thread a little while ago. "In Star Wars they can make Star Ships that go thousands of times the speed of light crossing a galaxy BUT some GM's have an issue with a guy owning a gun that can blow a hole through a cinder block wall and a hole through the guy standing behind it??? BUT again the thousands of times THE SPEED OF LIGHT thing is okay..."

 

Nuff said

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Basically

In all my campaigns I totally go by the availability codes as I said the "where they are and what they want to buy and does it make sense for your character to have it" guide line to determine if they get whatever piece of equipment it is that they want.

 

As a friend of mine said to me as I was telling him about this thread a little while ago. "In Star Wars they can make Star Ships that go thousands of times the speed of light crossing a galaxy BUT some GM's have an issue with a guy owning a gun that can blow a hole through a cinder block wall and a hole through the guy standing behind it??? BUT again the thousands of times THE SPEED OF LIGHT thing is okay..."

 

Well said TinMan. Its bad when players break suspension of disbelief, its worse when GM's do it.

 

Darren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In all my campaigns I totally go by the availability codes as I said the "where they are and what they want to buy and does it make sense for your character to have it" guide line to determine if they get whatever piece of equipment it is that they want.

 

Good, relevant reminder about using the availability and restriction guidelines as designed in RAW to manage PC equipment acquisition in the game.

 

"In Star Wars they can make Star Ships that go thousands of times the speed of light crossing a galaxy BUT some GM's have an issue with a guy owning a gun that can blow a hole through a cinder block wall and a hole through the guy standing behind it??? BUT again the thousands of times THE SPEED OF LIGHT thing is okay..."

 

I see the point, but this GM doesn't agree with it in general for his game. Using the ultra-technolgy that appears in the films as a rationale for the existence of other high-tech equipment and weapons that doesn't is a good example of the dangers this thread addresses.

 

For one, with all the high-tech they do have, look at all they don't have. Star Wars seems to be missing a lot of technological conveniences that we have today. Why? Because it is space opera and the genre (as well as the classic trilogy itself) existed before all that stuff did.

 

And that logic carried forward opens up an ever bigger can of giant space slugs for me. I don't know this for a fact but I think that Lucas attempting (but failed) to significantly lessen the age of the Republic in AotC acknowledges that he totally blew it with Obi-Wan's throw-away line in ANH indicating that the Republic has been around for over a thousand generations (which the EU translated literally as 25,000 years BBY). Applying the above idea to the history of technological progression in the Star Wars galaxy, it is beyond comprehension to me that all technology isn't way more advanced than it is. Remember, hyperspace travel has existed since before the Republic.

 

So if hyperspace travel is over 25,000 years old, then how come humans still look like humans of our low-tech world today? How come all sentients aren't cybernetically "jacking" into technology or psionically controlling it with their minds? Why is there even war with such easy access to an entire galaxy of living space and resources? I think that a technological civillization at the level of the Republic at its formation (much, much higher than ours in many ways) would be way, way different and more advanced a whopping 25,000 years later than shown in the films. And then the EU takes the timeline so far into the future of the films that I would think tech would be even more advanced. But how do you get significantly more advanced than travelling thousands or even millions of time the speed of light?! Billions?! Trillions?! Interstellar teleportation?! Time travel?!

 

I have a difficult time reconciling everything I see in the films with the knowledge that the Republic is 25 millenia old, so I try not to even think about it. I feel the "Journal of the Whills" introduction to the original Star Wars film novelization says it best:

 

The Old Republic was the Republic of legend, greater than distance or

time. No need to note where it was or whence it came, only to know

that... it was the Republic.

 

That is the ultimate suspension of disbelief right there (well, right after "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away"). I consider myself a rational, scientifically-minded person, but with respect to technology I apply my sensibilities of what is "Star Warsy" or not to whether it exists in the my game more than anything else. And I keep my main focus on the time period closest to the films as the easiest way to suspend my own disbelief with respect to the utter lack of technological advancement over the course of the history of the SW galaxy. I basically think about the time of the films, and when necessary "before" and "after" as closely as possibly, and when dealing with larger scales of time, as vaguely as possible.

 

So Tinman, to answer your friend's rhetorical question: Yes, thousands, even millions of times the speed of light is OK. :cool:

Edited by Whill
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see the point, but this GM doesn't agree with it in general for his game. Using the ultra-technolgy that appears in the films as a rationale for the existence of other high-tech equipment and weapons that doesn't is a good example of the dangers this thread addresses.

 

For one, with all the high-tech they do have, look at all they don't have. Star Wars seems to be missing a lot of technological conveniences that we have today. Why? Because it is space opera and the genre (as well as the classic trilogy itself) existed before all that stuff did.

 

In general I tend to agree with you, but we really aren't talking about tech that doesn't exist in the universe. We are talking about GM's that are restricting tech that is already there because they don't like it for one reason or another. I think one of the examples was getting good weapons and armor and putting them on a Nohgri, or buying Coynite Battle Armor.

 

Personally I like my players to be creative and have fun. If they want something and can figure out how to get it, that is fine with me. They want something that doesn't exist? That is what the engineering skills are for. They may not always succeed, but they should always have the option, they should always have a chance.

 

As a player nothing pisses me off more than a GM that ignores the goals of my character or arbitrarily makes decisions for no real story reason. If I want to be railroaded along a story I will play a video game. If I have a character that I want to build and grow, then I play a role-playing game.

 

I think one of the most memorable games I ever ran, that the players still remember fondly to this day, was a game where one of the players finally said, screw this. The group was playing a fantasy game and having a hard time because they kept getting used by the others to do the dirty work. So they went off, created there own little empire and then came back several game years later with an awesome plan and completely decimated the bad guy.

 

Nothing is cooler than a creative gaming group, and nothing kills creativity faster than a controlling GM.

 

Darren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, but as I tried to make clear, nothing in those tech manuals automatically exists in my game world. So a player attempting to acquire something from those books that didn't appear in the films or previously in my game is atttempting to introduce new technologies into the universe. Those books aren't "canon" by default by my games.

 

I'm not taking your whole post directed at me Darren, but I would like to clarify my views in light of it. I have a one-on-one, sit-down discussion with every player of mine up front during character creation. We discuss character motivations, objectives and intended or possible character development over the course of the pending campaign. The player and I always come to agreement on everything before the first adventure is played (but I am also flexible to allow for revisions to the original concept to occur along the way of the campaign, and if desired then there are more sit-down discussions about it). There is no arbitrarily disgregarding player goals for characters in my game ever, for any reason. If a player told me at the start of the campaign that his concept for his new PC is a genius gadgeteer who continually invents new and better technologies, I would reiterate the lack of technological focus in my games and we would work out the incompatibilities up front, before the campaign ever began. As a GM, I am not satisfied unless each of my players is completely accepting of our co-creations.

 

You may still possibly consider that controlling and railroading, but I don't think so because there are no surprises to my GM style, my general vision of the Star Wars universe, and the types of games I run. It's all laid out on the table before a campaign begins. As indicated before, my players and I each have certain types of game we are interested in playing, and my goal is always to find a common ground that we all can approve of and enjoy. Anyone who absolutely can't find anything in common doesn't have to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×