OOC Chat

[SWSF Eidolon]

"You're the worst character ever Towelie" =)

Every cup cake I ever eat since i've had a red velvet, i've wished were red velvet

[Ramano]

I see what the problem is here. The rules are written in RPG format. They are not set in stone "THOU SHALT NOT KILL" type things. They are more a set of guidelines on what is and isnt allowed. Some people here have never played D&D before so they have no clue how RPGs work. They think RPG means Final Fantasy video game, which could not be farther from correct.

In essence what your argument is Eid and Hop is you think these planets should all fight to the death, it dont matter, when in reality no force is going to take a head on engagement being outnumbed 1000 to 1, and against a star destroyer, are you mad? Its called realism. If you show up and attack a planet that only has 10 squads of troops for defense and you got an MC-80, they will surrender to you too. No one is going to realistically fight a hopeless situation, and your insane for thinking they should.

Its kind of funny, you complain you dont care about fairness and that life isnt fair, then you sit here screaming about how its not fair that the imps are getting all these planets because they showed up in a tactically and strategically superior position. And lets face it, sugar coat it all you want, this is exactly what you are saying, just trying to be delicate about it.

Basically, it comes down to your argument is irrelevant as it defies common sense. Its called role playing, for the same reason you wont openly attack a planet, planets will surrender to a far superior force. Or in the case of myrkr which was small enough to get away with it, role played out to same conclusion with a little flavor. If its your planet getting attacked, feel free to order your men to their deaths, and perhaps they might actually do it, but as far as neutral planets are concerned, they will not throw their lives away needlessly, short of a direct GM ruling to the contrary.

Another thing I dont think your argument takes into account, openly attacking a planet, such as I did at Bespin or Dem did at Myrkr, is not a mission. Its just an attack action. Missions as we discussed earlier around page 34 of this OOC, are for taking a planet without losses. If you dont care about losses, you can just attack them. Thus why I attacked Bespin and did diplomacy at Bakura, because bakura would have forced an attack, which I did not want to do. Bespin on the other hand could be out maneuvered into a no-win situation thus justifying a surrender, same with Dantooine, same with Myrkr.

So for the record, I am against changing rules and punishing people for careful planning. I mean, im sorry Eid and Hop, im on your side, I really am, but in all fairness, your asking for a rule change because the role play YOU chose basically makes it impossible to win the game on your own. Which is fine, I like your guys role play you have going, and I look forward to seeing what happens when our factions meet, and its also why you have me to help you should we be in a position to lay some hurt down, but I can not support your argument on this. Your asking for 100 part-time planetary militia to stare down a star destroyer, come on... Thats like asking for a national guard squad to go head on against the 3rd Reich. Yeah right, they'd laugh your ass right off the base while they deserted around you.

[SWSF Eidolon]

I was GMing RPGs when you were uncle sams bitch ;p

No.  you miss the god damn point entirely as usual.  Yeah, life not fair.  What's that got to do with an engineered game?  jesus youre a mutant ;p  i mean that lovingly

you're playing by an entirely different set of rules in a structure game. whats the fucking point in that?  switch your meds up dude.

[Ramano]

Umm... not only am I older then you, but I gamed with the creator of D&D sir. Do you forget I live 20 minutes outside Lake Geneva? I knew Gary, and know Luke Gygax personally. You do not want to test me when it comes to pen & paper gaming. I helped to build it.

And the point im making is why cant an engineered game be realistic? Because its a game 100 lone soldiers should charge out across the battlefield like rampaging lunatics?

Edit: Fuck it, I dont know what the hell I was trying to say with that. But yeah, im shooting for realism here. And realistically, 100 national guard soldiers are not going to stand off against a star destroyer.

[SWSF Eidolon]

I don't give a shit if lucas got his idea for at-ats while you were blowing him, i would still blame you for jar jar binks and 3PO being smithed by a young Vader.  


  The well defined options with specific requisites to me insinuated room for improvisation was extremely limited.  A disclaiming clause in rules somewhere about "hey if you can think it that way, good enough for being rules valid!" would have been appreciated.

   All I got to do to speed up diplomacy at Raxus by that logic is land some troops, i'll engage some made up Paramilitaries as say t hey are the Junk Droids (originally run by PROXY) and that I'm cleaning them up to win residents affection.  Booya, done in a couple days.  Creativity is not the matter, if you want creativity me and Greg will have NR worlds hemmed up in a month with clever story premise.  I thought the purpose was some chess boxing here?

[Ramano]

Space Defenses: Marauder Corvette x2, Action VI Gunship x4
Ground Defenses: Beta-class Military Industrial Complex x1, Delta-class Multipurpose Base x1

Gunna take a bit more then a squad, but if you can wipe out the space defenses, and you got something with 700+ squads of troops on it, yeah I would support your case the planet would surrender.

Edit: And do remember, at any time, just like in D&D, if you want to do something "weird", throw together a brief RP summary of it and tell Hale what you want to do. As I said, A good RP (And I mean good, if you want to circumvent rules, hey, in life stranger things have happened, but its gotta be believable. Whats believable, use your imagination. When I GM something, if you can make me see it in my head, and I could see it happening, im game, lets see where it goes.) is more important then rules. I personally feel keeping the game interesting and fun to read should be given higher priority then making it work like a text version of starcraft.

[SWSF Eidolon]

Space Defenses: Marauder Corvette x2, Action VI Gunship x4
Ground Defenses: Beta-class Military Industrial Complex x1, Delta-class Multipurpose Base x1

Gunna take a bit more then a squad, but if you can wipe out the space defenses, and you got something with 700+ squads of troops on it, yeah I would support your case the planet would surrender.

this is diplomacy, that's the residents stuff. they're my friends when I kill some stupid robots. come on man, we're making shit up as we go along here. THINK! ;p

[SWSF Hale]

As GM, I can't nor won't hold people accountable to Conquest and Diplomacy as the only means to take a planet. This is "the point" to which I believe you and Greg are arguing, because this would require no new rules, just a more strict enforcement of the current ones.

Unfortunately, even within the parameters of a highly detailed rules set, there often exists scenarios that happen outside of said rules where there is no guidance or law to govern said scenarios. When this universe launched, one could have lumped non-Conquest military strikes into this category. As the HGM, I could have stepped in and said, "sorry guys, Conquest and Diplomacy only"... but that just rubs me the wrong way because I don't want to tell players how to play the game. What I do want to have is a rational set of rules that tell players how to interact with the galaxy they are playing in. Obviously I can't predict every "outside-the-rules" scenario that could creep up, but at the same time I don't want to legislate the players to death either with more rules and regulations. So in a very literal sense I'm caught between the two extremes of tighter enforcement as GM or more legislation.

[Ramano]

Thats the point Eid, you cant do diplomacy and attack at the same planet at the same time. They are mutually exclusive. And lets look at it from a realism point, what society is going to sit there in diplomatic talks with you while you bomb their population out of existence. See, you can be snide all you want, but even through it, im a good RP GM and have dealt with people way worse then you at that.

And being an RP vet like you claim, you also know the GM, can step in at any time and tell you yes or no, and there is nothing you can do about it, like it or not. You could be completely with in the rules of the game, and hale could still step in and tell you nope, not gunna happen. I dont see him doing it, but the point is he COULD. Likewise you could do something totally against a rule of the game, but because you had a beautiful and interesting story behind it, he allows it.

This is what im trying to say, this is an RP, and like a pen & paper RP, rules are there for structure, but at no time are you chained by them. You are chained by the GM and what he will and will not allow with in the SCOPE of the rules. Its a common sense thing.

Edit: And thats why RPs like this have a GM, to determine what common sense is. If you and I differ on our views, the GM is there to step in and say "This is how its gunna be." As I said at least 5 times, think of the rules more as a set of guidelines, not commandments.

[SWSF Eidolon]

RE: Hale's last post

  Then the original argument over "Rule Violation" is put to rest.  The resolution is how to get equal opportunity RAPID expansion (because MISSIONS provide long term option).

  The NR cannot within character scope engage in hostile annexation of neutral worlds, be it by the defined INVASION method, or left open to interpretation as it has been up to now.  The only way we can reckon that is within the scope of story, we are engaging "Imperial Elements", otherwise there is no equal opportunity expansion with regards to INVASION, it is moot from the NR angle.  The only worlds we would ever INVADE is a world Imps occupied.  That means we have to fight players to conquer aggressively while you guys push over neutrals.

   The ACCESSION method is a fine option for the NR to be able to rapidly expand, but enabling it for IMP factions along with INVASION, when NR cannot and will not use INVASION is maintaining the imbalance in expansion opportunity.  If you don't want to clearly define annexation outside of MISSIONS and are going to allow hostile annexation via any method, than you can't hold us the NR to MISSION DIPLOMACY either.  We will conduct diplomacy on our own terms outside of the MISSION parameters, as everyone else is invading.  Does this seem fair?

[Ramano]

And thats my point, YOU chose that RP, not us. No one is telling you that you cant invade a planet but you. And like I also said, if you can show that the planet holds "imperial" troops on our timeline, by all means we will run with it. Its the RP and the story thats important. What I have to ask is, removing fairness from the equation as we have already determined it doesnt exist in reality, by what justification do you have for a rule change because YOU chose a pacifist storyline? (And thats a serious question, not sarcasm)

Edit: And for the record, I can show at least 2 examples of the NR attacking sovereign worlds with no provocation and holding no imperial presence. So even under your own SL, there is nothing saying you cant invade another planet. It was not unheard of for the NR to "liberate" lesser advanced planets to prepare them for imperial invasion. Thats the SL im playing. (In other words, stop being a bunch of pussies and come join the game with the rest of us, lmao!)

[SWSF Eidolon]

RE: Hale's last post

[SWSF Hale]

Honestly I can tell you within the scope of my character, I would either do Invasion, Conquest, or Diplomacy. With Diplomacy I'd take the extra-time penalty, so chances are I'm just going to attack. The Imperial Remnant might be the more reasonable Empire, but its still the Empire and we're going to kill you Imperial style. If you're in my way, I'm going to attack you, plain and simple. If there's a system I want, I'm going to take it from you by force. Now, for planets like Kuat with Imperial Amnesty, you can bet your ass I'm going to use Diplomacy. =)

[Ramano]

Truth be told, this is why I was against the mission system to begin with. Diplomacy and aggression should be determined by the SL accompanying the post, not a set system in place for how these are done. I mean, realistically the mandalorians considered attacking a planet in force to be a diplomatic action by making sure the planet was strong enough to join the mandalorian empire. That was the whole point of the mandalorian wars, they were testing the republic to see if it was worthy of an alliance. And it was a pacifistic approach to the mandalorians that caused the republic to suffer the losses it did.

So im in favor of just scrapping the whole mission system in favor of a more direct storyline approach. This way there is nothing saying the imps cant use diplomacy, which they most certainly did, and makes sure the NR isnt being hamstrung by their pacifist SL and can still expand, and still allows anyone who wants to do a good ol' fashion invasion can go ahead and do so. We could just put a small set of guidelines in that says diplomatic actions take a minimum of X amount of SLs and should take no less then X days. (And as always, again, this may be changed for the better or worse depending on how the GM views the SL, if its exceptional good, maybe you get it faster, if your SL sucks and is just there for rule purposes, maybe it takes a little longer, or you fail all together.)

So actually, I guess im in favor of your original plan hale that you just take a more direct GM approach to the game. Just keep in mind, your playing a character too and thus what you make apply to us should apply to you as well. No making the game easier for you cause well, your GM and that makes you god. In that case, I have to unite the game against you and we come kill you lol. (Mass Effect ftw)

[SWSF Hale]

I don't have the time to keep watch over everyone's conquest, diplomacy, or whatever other mission.. so there's no way I'd be able to eject the missions from the rules and take a GM-overseer position. The rules even keep me accountable.