billd91
Pathfinder subscriber
COPPER SUBSCRIBER

That reading, billd91, does not seem fair to any of the parties involved, whether in their favor or against them.

To me that just suggests bad mechanics! I don't see how. Ah yes. The Mother-May-I One-True Wayist manifesto. I'm not the one ascribing another style with a pejorative but hey we all see what we want to. Can a player use any skill check/ability to get the shard back? If not, why not? I have bolded the bits which, to me, suggest that the player's success in persuading the giant to return the shard was conditional on the GM's opinion about what makes for good or bad fiction (here expressed in terms of reasonable cause of action for the frost giant). You're suggesting it is better that the GM cannot roleplay the NPCs he/she introduces into the game world, and when I mean roleplay, I mean free of any mechanics (i.e. die rolls). I admit I find that odd. Could the FG in your game talk the PC out of wanting the shard returned i.e. the FG makes a diplomacy/persuade roll? Also like @billd91 mentioned in the other thread, isn't the DM ascribing a lower or higher DC to a roll reflecting his/her opinion on what makes good or bad fiction? EDIT: MMI kicks in if there is 0% or less chance of success on the player's action declaration, but 1% possible success or higher is ok? I think that is the sort of thing the OP is trying to avoid when using the phrase "without forcing players to play the "Mother may I" game". Ah, you mean without forcing players to provide further details for their action declarations so as DMs we can adjudicate the likely chance of success. Such Bad DMs. :) Eric: I try get my shard back from the Frost Giant without starting a fight. DM: How do you go about that, she has already placed it back in her hair? Eric: I use diplomacy, I'm proficient. DM: Cool, what do you say to her? Eric: Well, I ask nicely, smile a lot and bow often? DM: Is there something specific that you say? Eric: Nah, I have a +7 on my Diplomacy roll. My character is rea...

I’ve learned the hard way that good friends don’t always make for good people to game with. I put up with a lot of nonsense from friends at the gaming table, until I didn’t. But I suppose it depends on how much you’re willing to manage the potential difficulties. A lot of what you described could in theory be easily resolved. Stuff like, if he tries to steal from other PCS, “I’m sorry, but PCs aren’t allowed to steal from the party and other PCs in my games;” and, for the spotlight hogging “Okay, we’ll get to you when your turn comes around, but PC#2 is currently doing something.” It is a gamble, but as billd91 said, we all had to start somewhere as players, probably somewhere near the bottom. (and good friend)

I have found the opposite to be true, actually. Rerolling initiative every round has generally been to the party's benefit, despite some "exciting" moments. It creates unpredictability, which the player characters (being more versatile) can take advantage of better than typical NPCs. This has been true of a party level 5 - 7, and a party 11 - 13. I might be the case that rerolling init made the lowest levels more difficult, I haven't tried that. As billd91 said, anything that increases randomness benefits the DM's side of the equation. The players have to get lucky every time. The monsters only have to get lucky once. Sure, it might benefit the PC's and it likely will. But, when it helps the other side, which should also happen fairly frequently, it can radically up the difficulty of an encounter. As far as realism goes, well, that's not a consideration for me. I accept that D&D combat is largely abstract, so, trying to make it more realistic is, to me, just not something I really want to deal with. If I did, I'd wind up rewriting the entire combat section to the point where I might as well play a game that actually has realistic combat. :D

...than a +1. If you need a 2 you have a 95% to succeed normally, and 95% + 5% * 95% = 99.75%, agains slightly less than +1. This is the minimum. If you need an 11, you have a 50% normally, and a 50% + 50% * 50% = 75% with advantage. That's the equivalent of +5. This is the maximum. Your +/-6 to +/-7 is outside the range of what is possible. That mean it is likely not the average. You may want to double check you math. One common mistake I've seen is working out to roll 2d20 and subtract the higher fromt he lower. That's really comparing advantage (best for 2d20) with disadvantage (worst of 2d20). It's clear if you work it out as percentages what it can be for every target. Man, these arguments hurt me because there's this weird thing where everyone tries to map a normal distribution onto a flat distribution via +/-. It's wrong in a technical way. But, I'm an engineer, so that's probably just my bag. That said, the above is the right wrong way to do it Retreater, billd91. The "bonus" that advantage applies differs depending on what the target number on the d20 is for success. It's greatest in the middle, where it increases the chance of success by 25%, and weaker on the ends where it's bit less than a 5% bump. If you need to roll a 20, advantage helps by almost doubling your chances from 1/20 to 19/400, but if you need an 11, advantage increases your chances from 10/20 to 15/20. If you need a 2, advantage bumps you from a 19/20 to 399/400.

...is is insistent on the point doesn't answer the point. The idea of the DL-style game is that at least the players provide a bit of colour and a few minor decision points. But if the GM is also establishing the most important bits of PC colour, telling me what decisions are and are not appropriate for a worshipper of XYZ, etc - well, what's left for the player to do? ut no one's offered a reason why a player playing a cleric or warlock whose god/patron is happy with what s/he does, or playing a motorcycle-riding vampire, would wreck the game.I was under the impression the god/patron was not happy (being played by the DM).But that's exactly my point. If the player's preference that the whole god/patron thing be "backgrounded" was respected then the god/patron would be happy. But for whatever reason the GM is inserting his/her own preference to decide that the god/patron is not happy. For what reason? If the GM thinks the player is just a wrecker - which eg was the implication of billd91's reference upthread to "murder-hoboing" - then as Aldarc has said, that's a social problem that can be resolved by a sensible conversation among participants. It's not an aspect of game play at all. But if the issue is not that the PC is wrecking things - eg if the PC was playing a wizard or a fighter or whatever no one would have any issues - then why is the GM needing to insert his/her conception of what the patron/god wants in favour of the player's conception of the same? How is that improving the experience? Telling me that we're not talking about story-now play doesn't help - even within the follow-the-GM's-trail paradigm, I dont understand what this is supposed to be adding to the play experience. In fact when the PC played a warlock in my game and chose a darker patron, I asked him what he wanted me to explore, how much had he developed the patron and how much input he wanted from me.That seems to imply that you are interested in identifying and respecting the player's ...

But, who's forcing the DM to do anything here? If anything, I'm giving less work for the DM. The DM no longer has to worry about what to do, if anything, with this patron. The player is not interested in playing that out. Why would you, as a DM, knowing that the player isn't interested, bring it into the game? Again, who is it for? It's not for the player. It's not for the other players. So, the only person it's for is you, the DM. You want to bring it into the game purely for your own enjoyment, knowing that the player doesn't want it. Are you deliberately misunderstanding billd91, or do you genuinely not understand that if the DM wants a game where he controls the NPCs, he's forced to play a game he doesn't want to play if players can force him not to play the patron? We're talking about one small change to one character that isn't going to affect ANYTHING. If it's not going to affect anything, the player shouldn't have a problem with the DM playing the patron.

...t of play) and those orc children escaped. And, after the third, fourth, tenth time, most groups are just going to take it as read anyway. This is the point I keep coming back to. We already Background tons of stuff in play because it's not terribly interesting. How many groups actually, consistently, track spell components? How many groups worry about paying the monthly living expenses? So on and so forth. Sure, you might do it from time to time, but, realistically, it just fades back and becomes a non-issue. Do you seriously destroy a wizard's spell book every time he falls in water? Or gets fireballed or whatnot? Naw, you just take it as read and move on because it's too much of a PITA. Here, we have examples that only really affect one player and the DM. The rest of the group couldn't likely give a toss about it. Do you seriously care how we hide the Druid's animal companion every single time? The funny thing about this conversation is that some posters, like billd91 and 5ekyu are framing it as a powergaming thing. But, look at that warlock's patron. There's two sides to that. Sure, if you have an active patron, then the patron might ask the PC to do something. But, it also works the other way. There's times when the PC can and should be able to call upon his or her patron for help - be it information, or contacting other NPC's or whatnot. By backgrounding, the player loses that side of things as well. Sure, the DM can't force behavior from the player, but, by the same token, the player cannot expect to get anything as well.

At this point its pretty obvious you just want to keep inventing things to claim others have said... as i have never said anything that the GM can "force" your character to take certain actions. this was explained in great detail one or more times since you keep mixing and mashing the Gm and the patron. Nor have i said anything about forcing the paladin to take certain actions. That you choose to keep trying to portray it that way is very highly illustrative - so, thanks. wow, you agree with billd91 in the post before this, but, tell me I'm inventing things. :erm: What exactly, then, do you mean that I must accept the consequences of choosing a class if you aren't going to force anything?

It's much more than 10 outcomes! Say there are 5 people, we need a contest between each, first, and then... the pain begins... Say this is what happens A beats B A beats C A loses to D A loses to E Seems like A is in the middle of the pack, but... D loses to C E loses to B No idea where this is going, but now we need to resolve... everyone against everyone...I think the assumption that billd91 has made is probably the same as the one that Hriston has made explicit: each participant makes only one check, which is compared vs the check of all the other participants. So if A beats B but loses to E, that means that E beats B, which precludes the contradictory situation you are concerned about. The thing I don't get in this discussion is: how do you and Maxperson handle an attempt by three people to be the first to grab the ring? You couldn't do it the way you've described (independent binary checks) because of the risk of contradiction. So presumably you'd do it . . . just the same as initiative is done! (Except for having some differerent approach to handlling ties.)

Lanefan, billd91 - Tony Vargas's reply makes the point that needs to be made aboout "realism" in a hit point paradigm. As far as narration of hp loss and zero hp is concerned - if you're narrating hp loss, and dropping to zero hp, in surgical detail, and then having your suspension of disbelief disrupted by the recovery that the game rules provide for, well, I would suggest changing your narration! As I posted upthread, as a former RM player/GM, and someone who was pretty familiar with the drfit from AD&D to RM, RQ etc in the 80s/early 90s, it remains very strange to see posters arguing for AC-&-hp combat on "realism" grounds, and to be distinguishing AD&D or 3E from 4e on that basis. Also, someone upthread (maybe Sadras) mentioned tinkering - the most trivial tinkering possible to a RPG is to change the short and extended rest durations in 4e or 5e. (I don't know how common it is with 5e; based on dicsussions on teese boards it was extremely common with 4e.)

(1) It's not "more reallistic". It's different, but it's not realistic. billd91 already covered this one, so...what he said. (2) What makes you think a 4e PC who swoons in combat, and then recovers to fight on, has "had the livin' tar beaten out of him/her"? Maybe you're into nonsense narration, but I'm not. Even in the most gamist and-or disconnected versions of what hit points represent in any edition that I've seen posted in those arguments, a common theme is that going to (or below, pre-4e) 0 h.p. means you've taken enough of a beating that if left untended you're quite possibly going to die. The rules of all editions also have it that going to or below 0 is auto-death (0e), is auto-death* if not treated or cured quite soon (1e-2e-3e), or presents a significant risk of death if not treated or cured quite soon (4e-5e). These deaths aren't being caused by fainting. So to suggest someone repeatedly going to or below 0 within a short time "has had the livin' tar beaten out of him/her" is "nonsense narration" falls well below your usual standard, sir; and...

I don't think its the minis themselves so much as a heavy rule dependence on the spatial reality of the game. The early edition rules about space and positioning were easily handwaved. Not so much with 3e or 4e.That's what I said! But the biggest thing requiring almost pinpoint positioning of melee combatants was weapon reach - could you reach your intended foe or not? Not everyone cared too much about this, but in 1e RAW it's a thing.Rounds in AD&D are 1 minute, movement rates as 10s of feet per minute, and there are no rules for actually positioning in melee - only for getting cut down when you try to disengage from it! So while weapon reach can matter (eg in establishing first strike in a charging situation; for establishing how many soldiers can work together or fight one another in a confined space; etc) I don't actually see how you need minis/tokesn to track the ways in which it matters. (And I see that billd91 has made much the same point.)

If we are also using the dice to make the decisions, then why are we bothering to include players?Casting lots to resolve a disagreement among a group is not a thing that I or my group (or Luke Crane) invented. And using dice to establish parameters for choice, as part of playing a game, is not a new thing either. And in the context of RPGing, it's actually pretty standard. I know you're not talking only about this particular aspect of social mechanics, but that was the context in which Hussar made his post that you responded to. it looks like windmills and not real positions you're tilting againstYou must have missed billd91's 5-point reiteration of his reasons for agreeing with Lanefan that the technique I described is "worse than awful". And Lanefan's reiteration of his contention about the technique I described, although on different grounds from billd91's.

I think you're arguing against something no one is claiming, though. Is there a specific post or poster you had in mind? I may have missed it.Yes there is. I posted some examples - reported by others (Luke Crane) and reported by me, from the play of my own campaigns - where social resolution mechanics were used to settle disputes between players (and thus PCs) about what to do next. Lanefan and billd91 posted saying that what I described was awful - Lanefan doesn't like using mechanics to settle an argument at the table; and billd91 claimed it was a signficant abridgement of player agency. My view is that players agreeing to toss a coin doesn't abridge their agency; and that - by pretty strict analogy - players agreeing to be bound by the outcome of a resolution process doesn't either. The difference is that one requires specific roleplaying, the other does not. I can react to an in-game coin flip however I choose. (Anger, reneging on the agreement, relief, etc.) But apparently there are restrictions on how I am supposed to react to somebody else's Persuade roll. "You can react however you want, as long as you are persuaded."I'm not 100% sure what you have in mind here. I was replying to a post by billd91, which was in turn a response to a particular post of mine, about using a mechanical system to resolve an argument between players about what to do next. Here is a re...

...at bias, they just should be do so judiciously or rarely.) On both sides, this really is irrelevant as to who's rolling - the player or the NPC. However, for Camp 1, NPCs rolling checks against PCs tends to be viewed as irrelevant or unwanted. This is because the player can still do whatever they want, so the die roll is largely meaningless in regards to player decisions. Therefore, Camp 1 tends to adopt playstyles where NPCs don't initiate rolls against players but instead use their skills as challenge difficult benchmarks against player declared actions. Camp 2, however, seeing the information imparted by the rolls as binding, sees NPC initiated rolls as just another method for rolls to bind players and so doesn't draw a distinction between NPC initiated or player initiated rolls. But, the real core difference here isn't if NPCs checks can bind PCs, but how the results of a check are viewed -- is the result of a check informational or binding? Clearly, myself and iserith, billd91, and other are in Camp 1 -- checks are informational. Tony's and others are Camp 2. One camp or the other aren't better, but this explains the core philosophical issue that divides this discussion (I believe, at least). So, looking to other areas of the game beside social checks, does this continue to play out? Well, we'll have to divide checks into two categories: informational checks (which I'm discussing above) and those checks used to accomplish a task (like lockpicking). As for what constitutes the difference between a task resolution and an informational check, I going with whether or not you'd describe the result as something the PC knows or thinks is informational, if you instead describe a change to something outside of the PC that's task resolution. Firstly, for task resolution checks, I think both Camps engage the game the same way -- a success means the task is accomplished. There are other considerations for failed checks that I'm not going to go into in this po...

I'd like to stress that when playing a 'grittier' RPG system, you have less freedom, in a way: Since combat is lethal, it's something that must be avoided at all cost. Players _must_ come up with ways to overcome their opposition by means other than open combat, otherwise your campaign is going to be short-lived.For me, this illustrates the point I've been making upthread, to Saelorn, Shasarak and billd91. In a genuinely grim & gritty RPG, ambushing someone with a sword, or a crossbow, should be (more-or-less) as dangerous as dropping a rock on them. It's purely an artefact of D&D's mechanics, which rates a sword at d8 or d10 but leaves the rating of a boulder to the GM, that results in a fighter being unable to kill someone in a weapon ambush but able- at least at the tables of those GMs mentioned - to kill someone with a boulder ambush. Which once again relates back to Aenghus's point, that the effectiveness of the boulder vs the sword turns primarily on end-running around the damage rules. It's entirely an artefact of mechanics, not of "narrative first". In a "narrative first" game involving people of "flesh and bone" (to quote Saelorn), an ambush with a sword or bow should be capable of lethality. (And in games like RuneQuest, Rolemaster, Burning Wheel, etc - ie with broadly simulationist action resolution mechanics - it is.) But D&D chooses to subordinate lethality and gri...

billd91 do not get me wrong, i do not want to downvalue Cha to the 1st/2nd ed uselessness. I like how 5e gives every stat a purpose, but otoh i would have sometimes prefered the 3 saving throws of 3e because these add much more to believabilty and causality and make powerbuilds more interesting (E.g. resilience feat to get a powerbuild which is strong in all saves). If you view it the way -- oh a very charismatic Person (political leader / beautiful Lady e.g.) and you want to charm them, you canthink that they are eventually very used to people trying to get their favor, so even with to magical attempt they are more resistant -- and all makes sense again.

I was going to write something pithy, but, there's not much point. Go back and reread what Majoru Oakheart and billd91 just wrote and you're golden.

Thanks @billd91. Something to watch out for then if and when I implement the change. Just regarding the two abilities you spoke of: Our table plays with encumbrance, so carrying capacity/movement is something the players do consider. We currently have travel movement and combat movement on the character sheets. Combat movement is only used when they drop their backpack with items. The party consists of a Sorcerer, Cleric, 2 x Wizard and a Fighter/Wizard. 4 out of the 5 classes have low STR. With regards to Leadership - I would also add the 5e Attunement rule. PCs would be deciding against number of attuned items vs bonuses to their social skills.

If you have a trust problem with GMs, then that sounds like a you issue to me. It may be safe to say there are some GMs out there who might choose what happens based on what they want to happen - but I also know there are a lot of GMs out there who take the idea that they should be impartial seriously. Frankly, I'm a little more suspicious of the "Say Yes or Roll" mentality than the "Say Yes or No when appropriate for the situation" mentality because I don't feel the former gives the setting/mysteries/NPCs an even break with the PCs. I realize the thread has moved on quite a bit from this post, but I'm feeling the need to "unpack" this a bit. To restate---in your view, "Say 'yes' or roll the dice" principles meaningfully diminish some combination of desirable gameplay qualities, including but not limited to: Maintaining "The mystery of the unknown". Maintaining "causational realism" or "causational coherence". Ensuring the PCs don't inhabit an artificial "protagonist bubble" ...

is it a common practice for consultants to receive credit in a book??The PHB is not a scholarly work governed by standards of academic ethics; and I very much doubt that the sort of work the "consultants" did on the PHB generates entitlements to be acknowledged under "moral rights" law. (I'm not even sure if the US has moral rights laws.) But it is common for companies to try and promote their products. And in the case of a personality-driven consumer market like RPGing, naming prominent personalities as "consultants" is a marketing technique. I think it may be that they just don't want the (possible??) headache of having D&D associated in general with any of the consultants anymore, probably with the Zak S. stuff being a catalyst for the move. <snip> they didn't just remove Zak S. and RPG Pundit... they removed all of the consultants including Kenneth Hite, Kevin Kulp, Vincent Venturella & Robin Laws...none of whom I would classify as old school or anti-new school.I think it's fa...

Partly because of his blatant misogyny, yes. But he’s also the poster kid of the independent comics movement, so I think negotiating licensing and authority control over any product with his IP would be a nightmare. As to the first part, there’s plenty of stuff on TV and in films and on radio created by people with some pretty ugly personal histories. Even in the age of #MeToo, Sim’s stuff could still be profitable, especially if handled as I described. And because of his views, he probably wouldn’t have much negotiating leverage, so the big risk is just how cantankerous he wants to be in negotiations.

But removing all of the consultants? If I had been involved at that level and had a credit removed, I'd be kind of pissed off. We don't know what his feedback was, or what of his even got used, so I don't know if his "level" of involvement is something we can speak to. But, ultimately, consultants are not authors. In most industries, anyone called a "consultant" is a person who is hired on temporarily to lend a hand with something. They don't typically get insurance benefits or vacation days, much less get public credit outside the company for successes. If you were to get "pissed" about that, don't hire on as a consultant, as your expectations of what that means are a bit high.

This is where I think WotC's response may be a bit on the excessive side. I have grave misgivings about a corporation erasing someone's credit - whether that person is a toad or not - without also removing the impact they've had on the product. But removing all of the consultants? If I had been involved at that level and had a credit removed, I'd be kind of pissed off. Eh, I think it may be a way to avoid any legal entanglements... this way they can just claim they are no longer giving consultant credits in their book moving forward as opposed to specific reasons for specific consultants being removed... which could get messy. I don't think it's a big deal either way they weren't developers or designers and I'm not sure listing consultants in a book is a common practice.

Regarding Bill Webb, I know of two local but well-regarded conventions that have recinded “guest of honor”-type designations from him. And I expect convention organizers will continue to be pressured to be more circumspect about such honors.So why is his product still available for sale at OneBookshelf? Apparently con organisers believe he's a sexual predator (although I'm curious if they have banned him from their CONS). His apology did seem to contain a certain amount of "I'm not going to dispute those allegations" which isn't quite as close as "I admit they're true" but seemed to be awfully leaning that way. Either he tried (and failed) to sexually harass someone, or he was falsely accused. Are sexual harassers acceptable in OneBookshelf's eyes? Do they have to escalate to sexual assault before they get removed? Is that okay to the greater community?

Without delving into the veracity of the current or even any past allegations, I think that perhaps a lot of this has to do with his generally toxic and combative attitude. If he hadn’t rubbed so many people the wrong way over so many years he might find himself with more support. Honestly, and I say this as someone who thinks his rpg work has been very compelling, his online behavior was so awful that it’s hard to imagine him being radically different in person.But his online behaviour was a known factor years ago. I knew about it back when the PHB was released (which was when I first learned of the allegations against him). No new facts have come to light with the most recent allegations. It's just a different person making the same claims about what he has done against them. Either he was guilty all along and the professional RPG community knew (or should have known. Given how widespread the allegations against Zak S have been, it's quite hard for them to claim they didn't know) or they g...

There are roughly a ton more ways to trigger an AoO in PF than in 5e, and a lot more ways to exploit them/modify them. In 5e, you really only provoke one for trying to move out of reach without taking the Disengage action. In PF, you can trigger them by doing quite a few things within the reach of an enemy - cast a spell, make a ranged attack, move out of a location even if not actually trying to move out of reach, stand up from being prone, drink a potion, dig an item out of a pack, etc. Basically, doing anything that draws the character's focus away from direct melee weapon vs melee weapon combat within reach probably draws an AoO. Right, h'derrr! Yeah this came up recently when I was playing 5th and someone stood up next to an enemy and I was like "that provokes an AoO" and I was like "OF COURSE IT DOES, OTHERWISE WHAT IS THE POINT OF TRIPPING?" and I guess I sounded authoritative and knowledgeable but the DM ruled that standing up would indeed provoke an AoO. Whoops. I honestly didn't kn...

Tennant and Smith count as early Doctor Who now? Okay, okay, we'll get off your lawn. ;)

Tennant and Smith count as early Doctor Who now? Early new Who;)

If you have a trust problem with GMs, then that sounds like a you issue to me. It may be safe to say there are some GMs out there who might choose what happens based on what they want to happen - but I also know there are a lot of GMs out there who take the idea that they should be impartial seriously. Frankly, I'm a little more suspicious of the "Say Yes or Roll" mentality than the "Say Yes or No when appropriate for the situation" mentality because I don't feel the former gives the setting/mysteries/NPCs an even break with the PCs. It isn't a trust issue. Its simply a judgement made by basic reasoning and experience.

So... it’s like ESB. Luke is missing a hand, Han is frozen, and the Republic is on the run. Honestly, the double-standard. You had Vader still being an effective villain the I am your father reveal and the rebels had a fleet. And the Emperor was also revealed and the Empire had the SSD. And Fett wasn't comic relief. Compelling villains work. Rey you're a nobody, entire resistance on the falcon and a weak villain. Sure they can probably pull a fleet out of their butt or have Rey force throw a Star Destroyer but there the closing scene of Empire was great.

There is so much BS in all of this. I just watched TFA again and Rey is not good at everything. She’s action-movie competent, like every other protagonist in an action movie and not a bit more than Luke and a hell of a lot less than Anakin in Phantom Menace. She gets clobbered by Kylo Ren twice and fights him to a draw AFTER he’s already been badly wounded by Chewie and further wounded by Finn. Tropes are not thrown away, even in TLJ. They’re subverted and that means they’re definitely addressed. Subverted badly. TFA is overall a good movie I rewartched it recently as well. It did kind of make TLJ that much worse though. JJ Abrams put so many good plot hooks to follow up on and they basically threw them away. There's not a lot to build on now. Kylo has gone back and forth to often and loses, Finn went backwards, Poe's an a hole, and it's like Rian didn't even watch TFA. Will people care enough now the 3 legacy characters are dead Well Carrie IRL). They can force ghost in Luke and...

If it was a man, he’d be decisive and commanding, not spoiled. A hole maybe. She was patroising iirc. Luke was kinda annoying in ANH. Han stole the show. Leia and Luke were better in ESB. Daisy is better at expressing emotions than Carrie, Mark and Hayden at least early on. Rey and Kylo looked like we're trying to kill each other I thought it was better than the dance they did in TLJ.

But, of course, she's not, yet you will ignore all those instances in which she is because they won't fit your thesis. I pointed out the difference is in the way they were booked. Luke had people bailing him out, Luke had to get trained. It's not just Rey in that either the kid is also using powers untrained. They also made some effort to explain things and the world building. And Darth Emo basically explains why Kylo is not s compelling villain. Rey can beat Kylo already there's no real reason to pay money to see Rey overcome him if she wins so what. Maybe the have sine sort of screwy finish. They don't even have that much if a connection unlike Vader and Luke or Anakin and Obi Wan. There's not much emotion there and you need that in a good Star Wars film.

It’s the same old sexist BS. Guys can be super-competent action heroes all over the place - from Luke and Anakin to John McClane and Indiana Jones. But if it’s someone with a vagina she’s gotta be a Mary Sue. Obviously she has to have a vagina to be a Mary Sue.

It’s the same old sexist BS. Guys can be super-competent action heroes all over the place - from Luke and Anakin to John McClane and Indiana Jones. But if it’s someone with a vagina she’s gotta be a Mary Sue. Only if done poorly for the wrong reasons with poor world building, storyline and basically throwing canon under the bus. Samantha Carter SG1 was great same with Teyla in Atlantis. Starbuck in BSG was fine. Orphan Black was great female protagonist, anything with Amanda Tapping really. Susan in Babylon 5. Claudia Black was more interesting than the other guy in Farscape.

I dunno. You’re the one who can’t seem to let it go. You’ve basically harped on it, what, 3-4 times this thread. Is this not a thread about new Star Wars? Specifically wherein the OP stated what they would have done differently? Why are you so interested in shushing someone whose opinion on that you disagree with? Btw, Zardnaar there is an obvious and extreme difference between employing assassins, and employing pre-pubescent children as assassins. It doesn’t doesn’t “inject a bit of grey” or whatever, it makes the Rebel Alliance vs the Empire a battle between evil and not quite as evil.

Alliance using assassin's is fine. They had them in legends. It's why I liked Rogue One it put the war into Star Wars And Legends, thankfully, isn’t canon anymore. It’s pretty obvious you have a lot of emotional investment in this issue. But it’s beyond your control. With Rogue One, LucasFilm chose to inject some grayness into the white hat-ish Rebel Alliance. That is their right and many of us appreciated it and the complexities it adds to the setting. Lol I love it when someone tries to use the idea that someone is “emotionally invested” as some sort of platform to dismiss their arguments. I’m not anymore emotionally invested in Star Wars than in any other media I enjoy. I do get annoyed by disengenuous arguments, and especially by goalpost shifting, disengenuous, arguments that paint two extremely different cases as if they are the same, or paint the absurdly out of place as if it were commonplace, which is what you see in the post you quoted. Hussar may as well have cla...

The ENnies are neither the NFL nor the IOC. They can have their own standards. Yes, of course they can have their own standards. I would have thought that the Olympic standards would be a good one to aim for.