The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Force Lightning/Electric Judgement
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules -> Force Lightning/Electric Judgement Goto page Previous  1, 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Naaman
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 2409

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 4:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah. It comes down to two things, I think:

1) Does the GM approve of the concept of "electric judgement."

2) Does the GM care whether accidental overkill is grounds for a DSP.

I tend to feel that accidents should not result in a DSP, since DSPs generally tend to reflect either the evil intent of the force user or the emotional state of the force user at the time of the power's activation.

I don't believe a character should attempt a benevolent or "light side" action and then "risk" getting a DSP. The character either has evil intent or he doesn't.

As for CRM's idea:

I understand how willpower would be appropriate to the scenario given, but what about control? Seems like a roll to limit the effects should come down to the character's control skill, not his willpower (unless the roll is designed to simulate the desire [or lack thereof] to limit the effect after tapping into the dark side to manifest the power; whereas a control roll seems more appropriate to simulate the capability to limit the effects).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 11596
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Because Control is about how you control the Force in yourself. How does that apply to control over one’s emotions? Making it based on Willpower also better represents the need for a Lightside Force user to diversify their CP expenditure when improving skills. A Darksider won’t care about DSPs, unlike a Lightsider, but basing it on Control means both the Dark- and Lightsider will have an equal degree of control over their emotions, even though only one of them actually wants to.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Naaman
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 2409

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seems like I didn't articulate very well.

Consider the RAW. When using Telekinesis to attack with, the character must make a control roll to "aim" the object, whereas the alter roll is used to be able to move it at all.

Control is also used to redirect blasters. By the logic you're using, it should be alter, shouldn't it?

Also, look at force lightning itself. It is a control/alter power. What does control have to do with it, if not using the force to "manage" (albeit for evil) the emotional aspect (found "within" the character) of the power?

But, my point was really to differentiate between emotional control (implied in the willpower roll) vs skill with the force (implied in the control roll). If the idea is to represent emotional constraint (which your most recent post seems to suggest that it is), then willpower may be the answer. If the idea was to represent the skill to be able to reduce the effects of a power in such a way that the nature of the power is effectively modified, then control seems more appropriate (to me).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 11937
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:

I tend to feel that accidents should not result in a DSP, since DSPs generally tend to reflect either the evil intent of the force user or the emotional state of the force user at the time of the power's activation.


So if a jedi tk's an enemy's grenade off somewhere, and it accidentally kills, he shouldn't get a dsp?

Naaman wrote:

I understand how willpower would be appropriate to the scenario given, but what about control? Seems like a roll to limit the effects should come down to the character's control skill, not his willpower (unless the roll is designed to simulate the desire [or lack thereof] to limit the effect after tapping into the dark side to manifest the power; whereas a control roll seems more appropriate to simulate the capability to limit the effects).


How's about linking the two.. You can only roll as many control dice as you have willpower??
_________________
It's Not who you kill, but how they die!
You cannot dodge it if you do not know it is coming, and you cannot hit it if you do not know its there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 11596
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That mostly sounds like coming up with a rule simply for the sake of coming up with a rule, rather than because it does a good job representing the actual in-universe process.

The reason I went with Willpower is due to an article WEG published in a gaming magazine way back when. In an article on the Dark Side, they posited that the reason certain powers (or actions taken with certain powers) earned DSPs was because of the emotional "fuel needed to power them, that even if using a DSP power for a positive result still opened up the character's psyche to the influence of the Dark Side.

This seems a decent explanation, yet it has never sat well with me that WEG made a blanket ruling about TK Kill, for example. Luke very clearly uses what WEG described as TK Kill on the guards at Jabba's Palace, and risking two DSPs just to get by a couple mooks is a useless waste.

So, I looked for a compromise between the two contradictory pieces of evidence. To wit, yes, TK is a DSP power, and the reason it is is not because it can't be used for good, but because the means are ultimately what taints the character, not the result. However, a person of sufficient self control can contain those destructive impulses, so long as he also contains the level of damage inflicted.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Naaman
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 2409

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2018 3:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:


So if a jedi tk's an enemy's grenade off somewhere, and it accidentally kills, he shouldn't get a dsp?


Absolutely not.

Are you saying that if a Jedi makes an evasive maneuver in a speeder and loses control and then crashes into another speeder, killing the occupants, you'd give him a DSP?

You're taking a scenario and offering no variables. Questions that would impact the answer could be:

Did the Jedi know that there were innocent bystanders over there?

Did the Jedi act with callous disregard for the safety of others (whom he knew were or reasonably could be present)?

Did the Jedi make an effort to not hurt people that he knew were there? (Did the grenade land where it landed because of pure random chance? Did the Jedi fail a roll, causing it to land there? If so what roll? Alter? Perception [to realize that there were people there]?

Dark side points--as far as I'm concerned--are awarded for dark intentions. In my SWU, the ends don't justify the means. In yours, apparently they do, if accidentally harming someone results in a dark side point (the end being the harm that resulted in a DSP, while the means was that someone was hurt, regardless of the circumstances).

Caveat: the character's attitude about what happened will affect whether a DSP is awarded, but not for the act: for the attitude (was he remorseful or indifferent? Did he conclude that they were just "in the wrong place at the wrong time?" What is the emotional aftermath for the character?)


Last edited by Naaman on Thu Mar 08, 2018 3:06 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naaman
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 2409

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2018 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
That mostly sounds like coming up with a rule simply for the sake of coming up with a rule, rather than because it does a good job representing the actual in-universe process.

The reason I went with Willpower is due to an article WEG published in a gaming magazine way back when. In an article on the Dark Side, they posited that the reason certain powers (or actions taken with certain powers) earned DSPs was because of the emotional "fuel needed to power them, that even if using a DSP power for a positive result still opened up the character's psyche to the influence of the Dark Side.

This seems a decent explanation, yet it has never sat well with me that WEG made a blanket ruling about TK Kill, for example. Luke very clearly uses what WEG described as TK Kill on the guards at Jabba's Palace, and risking two DSPs just to get by a couple mooks is a useless waste.

So, I looked for a compromise between the two contradictory pieces of evidence. To wit, yes, TK is a DSP power, and the reason it is is not because it can't be used for good, but because the means are ultimately what taints the character, not the result. However, a person of sufficient self control can contain those destructive impulses, so long as he also contains the level of damage inflicted.


Yeah. I think for your purposes, willpower makes much more sense for what you're wanting to represent.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 11937
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2018 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:
garhkal wrote:


So if a jedi tk's an enemy's grenade off somewhere, and it accidentally kills, he shouldn't get a dsp?


Absolutely not.

Are you saying that if a Jedi makes an evasive maneuver in a speeder and loses control and then crashes into another speeder, killing the occupants, you'd give him a DSP?


That's a different situation. He's not using the Force. TKing a grenade on the other hand IS using the force. So if there's an accidental death cause of it, yes he can get a DSP.

Naaman wrote:

You're taking a scenario and offering no variables. Questions that would impact the answer could be:

Did the Jedi know that there were innocent bystanders over there?

Did the Jedi act with callous disregard for the safety of others (whom he knew were or reasonably could be present)?

Did the Jedi make an effort to not hurt people that he knew were there? (Did the grenade land where it landed because of pure random chance? Did the Jedi fail a roll, causing it to land there? If so what roll? Alter? Perception [to realize that there were people there]?


ANd all of those are good points. Which is why i said 'should. NOT WILL. Those sorts of questions would come into call, for whether the should shifts to a will. BUT if you look through all the prior threads we've had on issuing DSP's, i am a lot more harsher on it, than most.
_________________
It's Not who you kill, but how they die!
You cannot dodge it if you do not know it is coming, and you cannot hit it if you do not know its there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naaman
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 2409

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2018 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I know. But you were asking my opinion. So, there it is. Very Happy

My bottom line is that you can't hold a character accountable for things that he can't reasonably be expected to know.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mamatried
Captain
Captain


Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 548
Location: Norway

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2018 3:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:
I know. But you were asking my opinion. So, there it is. Very Happy

My bottom line is that you can't hold a character accountable for things that he can't reasonably be expected to know.



What is your opinion on allowing a CP cost of xCP to be allowed to "control" the power, like a tk, make it choke you to TOTAL submission and then end, with no risk due to xCP paid?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naaman
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 2409

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2018 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If I were to allow it (would have to think about it), then I'd just increase the difficulty. The character can spend a CP tocompensate for the difficulty, or, if skilled enough, they can more achieve more nuanced effects by virtueof their mastery (and pure intent).

But, if you like imposing a CP cost,I think the idea is a reasonable solution.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0