OOC: Resource Thread

STANDARD ROLL DIFFICULTY GUIDANCE



SPENDING ADVANTAGE/THREAT

COMBAT

SOCIAL (sorry, Genesys symbols)


ASTROGATION
So, Astrogation is basically the act of trying to pre-emptively and passively avoid space-obstacles while traveling at FTL speeds, right? What makes it more difficult is longer distances, and un/poorly-documented destinations (as well as things like damage, and erratic flight, no navi-comp, etc.). What makes it dangerous is flying off course from well known routes, hurrying the process, passing by known (or unknown) gravity weeks and anomalies and Atwood belts and things.

The way I run Astrogation is - often it will require no check - when you have plenty of time and there's nothing dramatic or interesting that can result from failure.

But if I am having you roll for it, results of failure could be anything from an automated-abortion of the jump process (the system didn't like the calcs) and you'll have to try again once the situation has changed significantly, to System Strain or Hull Trauma, to longer than normal travel times/distances or "landing" off course, etc. That will vary depending on the situation (whatever is dramatic or interesting or fits/matters for the scenario).

MORALITY

As I mentioned, I want an examination of "Jedi morality" to be a theme of this game. Which means I intend to use the F&D Morality and Conflict mechanic.

I will use the Conflict Table as guidance, but you should expect an implementation of this mechanic beyond that too (such as through fear, and even more general behavior like your PC's relationship with power).



That said, we are using the Morality system as a storytelling aid. It is not a stick that I'm going to whip you with for being "bad", it is a mechanic for you to use to tell your PCs story.

Accordingly, as the book suggests, I will always tell you when something you're about to do is gonna earn you Conflict, when I have the chance, OR I will give you the opportunity to retcon.

That said, I expect you to rp and engage the Morality mechanic mindfully, purposefully, and willingly. I've had players in games (here and IRL) tell me when their PC is feeling strong emotion - particularly anger, sadness, and fear - and either willingly take Conflict outright for it, or make a Skill test (usually Discipline or Cool) to "resist"/avoid Conflict. It is that kind of willingness to engage the mechanic that I would optimally like to see here from each of you.

HOUSERULE(S)
Only one that I can think of for now, and that is regarding Force Power use on Force Users. It's really not even a house-rule, as the RAW mechanics allow for it, but I've never seen anyone else do it so I wanted to give you the heads up:

In the bulk of Star Wars lore, Jedi and Sith fight with Lightsabers because it's generally pretty easy for a Force User to block a Force Power from being used on them, unless they're vastly overpowered or caught by surprise or something. To reflect that, I assess Setbacks to Force Power use against Force Users. If one party is way more powerful than the other, could be a lot of Setbacks, but never less than 1. This goes both ways. Force Users trying to use Force Powers against you guys will have automatic Setbacks too.

Hey gang, I've unlocked this thread so we can have conversations about the Morality mechanic.

Moving forward, please bring up any questions or disputes here. I will begin by addressing rune's concerns:
First of all, a single Conflict is not a unilateral statement that "Your PC is a Darkside, Sith, evil-bastard". It is a small, incremental "note", that is very likely to be entirely erased if you don't do "this sort of thing" all the time.

So, given that I mentioned that I would not only be using the Morality rules, but that I would be focusing on it for this game, I would urge everyone to relax a little bit and take a more broad view of what is going on with it...

Second, stunning someone is absolutely violent. If you walked up to someone on the street and just stunned them with a taser, you would get charged with assault.

So, doesn't matter that it wasn't lethal force.

Third, as I mentioned, the Morality mechanics often do not care about context or intent - other than aggravating factors. If you see someone who you know is a murderer and you murder them, because you've seen their plans to murder again, you still get Murder Conflict. One could have called the law enforcement, or otherwise taken other measures and not just killed them.

In rune's circumstance here, he could have physically shielded citizens with his body, or tried a social approach, or helped ppl get away, so on

But he was not the one being attacked, so it's not self-defense, so it's Conflict.

fair enough :)

One thing we should also remember is that we're currently all lightsiders. That means that if we decide to use dark side Force pips, we not only get Conflict for it, but we also have to flip a Destiny Point. That doesn't mean you shouldn't use dark side pips, but do keep it in mind, since it takes away a DP from our pool to do so. :)

Hey gang, I wanted to circle back on JackJack's dispute of Conflict for deciding to try to break the armor suit, to maybe help inform you all on how you should be considering your actions moving forward.

First, here's what J'errel said "Breaking shit? I can handle that,", immediately after which he used the Force to try to do damage to the armor.

Here's the Jedi Code:
Here's the Sith Code:
Based on what J'errel said and did, which of those two philosophies does his behavior more closely align with?

Seems like he was acting out of ignorance and furthering chaos to me, and using the Force as an implement of that chaos. It doesn't matter what he "believed", if a Jedi "believed" a person to be a murderer, they would still get Murder Conflict if they killed that person EITHER without being attacked first by them, OR if it wasn't in the direct/immediate defense of someone else (the "belief" that they might murder again is not enough). Does that help clarify?

And here's text from the Conflict Table 9-2.
3-4 Unnecessary Destruction (think: Kylo Ren for example just hauling off on tech consoles with his Lightsaber)
"PC destroys objects willfully and without good cause."

The question really raised then is: Was there good cause? J'errel was acting on - not even a hunch - just a shot in the dark. That is not good cause, for reference, moving forward.

Make sense? Sounds reasonable?

Also, please please please bare in mind the insignificance of a singular Conflict assessment, so long as you're not doing something really bad, or all the time.

I apologize if you felt like I was fighting you on it, I was just seeking clarification. Thank you for the post.