Mechanics Cross-Pollination Thread

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
I really appreciate the thoughtful responses guys! Well worth the time it took out of my Sunday-get-caught-up-with-work minutes for the initial post. Thank you!

Didn't Achilles, Beowulf and Arthur's stories ultimately end tragically for the heroes? (Not a rhetorical question, I am fuzzy).

If that narrative was still en vogue, even as in Shane or Eastwood's Pale Rider, I think today's movies would be more nuanced and appeal (to me) more than the current, quite childish, winner-takes-all mode. Logan (2017), which emulated Shane, stood out to me for exactly that same fatalistic melancholy. I'm not saying the hero always has to die, but there should be a price to pay for access to power.

Even in the original Star Wars arc, Luke was never triumphant. Using the Force (aptly named) to "force" a solution was ultimately a trap---the one Anakin fell into, but Luke did not.
Achilles, Beowulf and Arthur all died. Achilles was a whiny asshole, so good riddance. IIRC, Beowulf and Arthur defeated their enemies and protected their kingdoms, but suffered mortal wounds in the process; this is probably technically a tragedy but not really one in my books, especially since they were both well past their prime at that point (Beowulf was likely in his 70s), and Arthur went to Avalon and may return.

Wait, didn't you hate Rogue One? That fits the heroic sacrifice trope pretty closely.

Logan is a good example of how the best comic book movies often aren't comic book movies, but drift into other genres.

The Star Wars movies (well, the ones I watched, episodes I-VII) are mostly about faith. Luke's faith in the Force wins the day in Episode IV, and arguably informed Luke's decision not to join the dark side in VI. Anakin's lack of faith causes him to lash out rather than trusting that things will work out. Interestingly, the Jedi's religious creed of avoiding attachments, while Lucas seemed pretty enamored of it, is discredited in many ways throughout various Star Wars properties, including when Vader turn on Sidious to save his son.

Off topic, but one beef I had with the films I saw is that nobody actually seemed any worse off under the Empire other than the aristocracy. For example, Anakin was a slave under the Republic, which was clearly a slave culture served by both natural and artificial sentient slaves. The Republic is also clearly an empire, for reasons I will not describe to avoid the wrath of Prince, other than to point out it is expansionist and resource-extracting. The animated and live action series have retconned this to a degree, making the Empire overtly (and often unreasonably) oppressive to common people.
 

Hemlock

Should be playing D&D instead
Off topic, but one beef I had with the films I saw is that nobody actually seemed any worse off under the Empire other than the aristocracy. For example, Anakin was a slave under the Republic, which was clearly a slave culture served by both natural and artificial sentient slaves. The Republic is also clearly an empire, for reasons I will not describe to avoid the wrath of Prince, other than to point out it is expansionist and resource-extracting. The animated and live action series have retconned this to a degree, making the Empire overtly (and often unreasonably) oppressive to common people.
The inhabitants of Alderaan were clearly better off under the Republic than vaporized by the Empire.

Anakin was a slave, but not exactly under the Republic--Tattooine was so detached from the Republic that you couldn't even spend the Republic's currency there. It's more like a tiny foreign nation, presumably one of many.

Showing the empire oppressing the common people is less a retcon than filling in the blanks[1]--Lucas never shows any interactions with the common people at all, although Tarkin's dialogue and actions (killing billions of innocent civilians) make it clear that it's a tyranny with no regard for law (e.g. dissolving the Senate) and no concern for its people.

[1] Unless you can show some sort of inconsistency that showing the oppression creates?
 
Last edited:

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
The inhabitants of Alderaan were clearly better off under the Republic than vaporized by the Empire.

Anakin was a slave, but not exactly under the Republic--Tattooine was so detached from the Republic that you couldn't even spend the Republic's currency there. It's more like a tiny foreign nation, presumably one of many.

Showing the empire oppressing the common people is less a retcon than filling in the blanks[1]--Lucas never shows any interactions with the common people at all, although Tarkin's dialogue and actions (killing billions of innocent civilians) make it clear that it's a tyranny with no regard for law (e.g. dissolving the Senate) and no concern for its people.

[1] Unless you can show some sort of inconsistency that showing the oppression creates?
Yeah, there is no way of debating this here without discussing many forbidden topics. We will have to agree to disagree.
 

Hemlock

Should be playing D&D instead
Yeah, there is no way of debating this here without discussing many forbidden topics. We will have to agree to disagree.
Huh, really? Could you PM me at least a few details so I don't wonder for the rest of my life what's forbidden about Star Wars and/or how anyone could disagree that Alderaan got a raw deal from the Empire? I may not agree but I'd like to at least know where you're coming from.
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
Without taking things in a terribly controversial a direction, I think a similar argument could be made that, at a superficial level, China and the West look very similar.

Maybe the dividing line is along the lines of how one treats those who disagree with those in power, and whether or not that power is in any way institutionally restrained.

These things may seem small at times, but they are at the heart of what made the West a more evolved system of government that everything that had come before (or have sought to replace it).

I have long thought our international trading policy should be exclusive to countries that are democratic, rather than if they are simply capitalists.
 
Last edited:

Hemlock

Should be playing D&D instead
Without taking things in a terribly controversial a direction, I think a similar argument could be made that, at a superficial level, China and the West look very similar.

Maybe the dividing line is along the lines of how one treats those who disagree with those in power, and whether or not that power is in any way institutionally restrained.
For the record, I don't think drawing real-world analogies necessarily adds clarity to discussions of fictional republics. I.e. I think your second paragraph is still a good point without the first paragraph; and I can see how the first paragraph could lead to a contentious argument about the real world.

I just literally can't understand what Beoric is trying to say by "nobody actually seemed any worse off under the Empire other than the aristocracy". Arguably we never see anybody except the aristocracy (if one considers the Rebel Alliance to be an aristocracy, since they are seemingly well-funded and have military equipment), which makes generalizing about the lives of those we don't see difficult. Maybe Beoric is focusing exclusively on Cloud City/Bespin? (Side note: it's very popular for people to call Empire Strikes Back the best Star Wars movie, but I don't agree. Phantom Menace is the best, followed by Episode IV/A New Hope.)
 
Last edited:

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
A New Hope was/is clearly the best. Zeitgeist-shifting. Everything that came afterwards was icing and (often unnecessary) elaboration. :)

Lucas knew what he was doing when he started the narrative there.

Folks liked Empire more because it was darker and more "adult", with a tinge of romance that put Harrison Ford (the "bad boy") more front-and-center. That's all. They were uncomfortable with the earnestness of the original---we live(d) in a jaded world of "cool" facades (that is, before everyone became a "geek" post Harry Potter, Jackson's LotRs, and dot-coms).

Plus, more light-saber dueling. :p

I do however love that you are championing Phantom Menace. Seeing someone swimming upstream against the flow of public opinion is almost always admirable to me. Right on, man!

If I were to guess about Beoric's claim, I'd assume that he feels that since still there was still a privileged class, poverty, etc....the two equate for the common man. The notion of a (even fictional) beneficent ruler has gotten a lot of push-back in the past 20 years as the old flames of class-warfare have been stoked once again by those seeking to manipulate the masses. I say no more.
 
Last edited:

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
If I were to guess about Beoric's claim, I'd assume that he feels that since still there was still a privileged class, poverty, etc....the two equate for the common man. The notion of a (even fictional) beneficent ruler has gotten a lot of push-back in the past 20 years as the old flames of class-warfare have been stoked once again by those seeking to manipulate the masses. I say no more.
That's not it, you would not hear me making that argument.

There is just no way to have this discussion without discussing what makes an empire an empire, how resource extraction works in an empire, colonialism, how colonialism works, and how those relate to Star Wars. Not that any of those would be the core of my argument, but they would pop up unavoidably from time to time. Also, I would have to talk about what kind of authoritarian regime the Empire is, and I doubt the very relevant discussion of whether or not it was fascist, or how the Empire (or for that matter the Republic) treats minorities, would go over very well.

The most politically neutral thing I can say is that, despite the symbolic trappings, the Republic and the Empire seem to have more in common with Republican and Imperial Rome than with modern democracies and empires. That transition from Roman Republic to Empire had a great deal of impact on the rights of the patricians, but not much impact on the plebians, whose lives were pretty much shitty under each, and possibly improved during parts of the Imperial period.

The fact that, at the outset, the story is only told by the patricians, does not help. This is in fact a trope from history; aristocrats write the histories, which is why everyone thinks Sparta was such a cool place (it was written about by Athenian aristocrats who admired its manly men and great armies - that actually weren't that great - and ignored its treatment of its own people), and why popular depictions of Rome are heavily influenced by patrician writings, which modern historians know to take with a grain of salt. Telling the story from the point of view of the aristocrats only implies that the point of view of non-aristocrats does not matter, which is exactly how historical aristocratic sources treated them.

There was ample opportunity in the first six movies to distinguish the lot of the common people, and it didn't - unless you count the treatment of the Gungans under the Republic, and the Ewoks under the Empire (the latter of which were pretty much ignored and allowed to continue their way of life, despite being on a resource rich moon along a hyperspace route), or the Droids under either. Or comparing the Clone Troopers, who were slaves of the Republic, to the Stormtroopers who are at least partly volunteers. But if I start talking about the treatment of the (clearly indigenous) Gungans, well, you see where that leads.
 
Last edited:

Hemlock

Should be playing D&D instead
The most politically neutral thing I can say is that, despite the symbolic trappings, the Republic and the Empire seem to have more in common with Republican and Imperial Rome than with modern democracies and empires.
Well, sure. That's not even controversial. George Lucas is pretty overtly equating the Galactic Republic to the Roman Republic, as a lesson on how republics fall (when the people demand strong leaders to fight chaos).

That's not the statement that surprised me. Maybe I just read too much into your use of the word "nobody" in the absence of evidence about pretty much everybody? If you'd said "Based on how governments work, I suspect some people probably have it about as good under the Empire as the Republic" I would have shrugged and went on my way.

The fact that, at the outset, the story is only told by the patricians, does not help. This is in fact a trope from history; aristocrats write the histories, which is why everyone thinks Sparta was such a cool place (it was written about by Athenian aristocrats who admired its manly men and great armies - that actually weren't that great - and ignored its treatment of its own people), and why popular depictions of Rome are heavily influenced by patrician writings, which modern historians know to take with a grain of salt. Telling the story from the point of view of the aristocrats only implies that the point of view of non-aristocrats does not matter, which is exactly how historical aristocratic sources treated them.
I agree about Sparta. Good riddance.

There was ample opportunity in the first six movies to distinguish the lot of the common people, and it didn't - unless you count the treatment of the Gungans under the Republic, and the Ewoks under the Empire (the latter of which were pretty much ignored and allowed to continue their way of life, despite being on a resource rich moon along a hyperspace route), or the Droids under either. Or comparing the Clone Troopers, who were slaves of the Republic, to the Stormtroopers who are at least partly volunteers. But if I start talking about the treatment of the (clearly indigenous) Gungans, well, you see where that leads.
Meh. Both the Gungans and the Ewoks were equally ignored by the Republic and Empire, respectively. (Also, "resource-rich"?) But the fact that the people of Alderaan were vaporized as an intimidation tactic by the Empire cannot be ignored, and says a lot about the geopolitical environment in which the Empire was operating.

To a lesser degree there are also some moisture farmers and Jawas on Tattooine with reason to complain of their treatment by the empire: killed out of hand, but at least their planet wasn't vaporized. No patricians they.

I disagree with counting the Clone Troopers as part of the Republic, since they were actually an advance element of the Empire and clearly the forerunner to (maybe organizationally contiguous with) the Stormtroopers. The fact that the Empire may have started recruiting even more troops than just their cloned troopers over the twenty years between Episodes III and IV gets a big shrug from me. They're still Palpatine's patsies in either era.

If we want to talk about Republic vs. Empire it makes more sense to use what we know of the Republican status quo prior to Palpatine's ascent to power.
 
Last edited:

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
I'm still not going to argue about the Gungans.

Trees (lumber) are resources, and clearly the land on Endor is fertile; one would have expected the Empire to indulge in slash and burn agriculture to grow cash crops.

The Clone Troopers were authorized by the Republic, being subverted by Palpatine does not change that.

Given that this is supposed to be channeling Rome, and the feudal/monarchic governments of many of the planets, we should not be surprised that warfare when it happens is brutal. Yes, the Death Star took out Alderaan in one shot, that does not mean it would not have been brutalized if it had been attacked in a more conventional fashion. Destroying Alderaan is the Star Wars equivalent of razing a city to the ground and putting its inhabitants to the sword.

But sure, let's say that the destruction of Alderaan is the one incident of mass destruction that the Empire performed in the first six movies for which, as far as we know, there was no moral equivalent in the Republic. And let's assume there is no Hiroshima-like nobler intention that it might not have actually saved lives by shortening the rebellion and preventing other uprisings. Other than that act of war, and the killing of individuals who had extended contact with the droid that held the plans for the Death Star, there are very few indications that ordinary people are worse off under the Empire in their day to day lives.
 
Trees (lumber) are resources, and clearly the land on Endor is fertile; one would have expected the Empire to indulge in slash and burn agriculture to grow cash crops.
I doubt the Empire would want the location of their top-secret military installation to become an economic hub.

And let's assume there is no Hiroshima-like nobler intention that it might not have actually saved lives by shortening the rebellion and preventing other uprisings.
The Japanese and Americans were actively at war. The Aaldaranians and the Empire were not. There was no strategic sense in destroying Aalderan beyond a broad intention to rule by fear.

Of course the Republic was not perfect. If it was, it could not have been turned into the Empire. But, the Republic didn't blow up planets or summarily execute farmers for the crime of unwittingly purchasing a robot formerly owned by a rebel.

Shit fuck right this thread is supposed to be about game mechanics. Uuuuhhh so hey weapon vs armor class modifiers, huh? How do we feel about that?

And do we apply it to Monsters or only to demihuman(oid)s wearing literal armor?
 

Hemlock

Should be playing D&D instead
But sure, let's say that the destruction of Alderaan is the one incident of mass destruction that the Empire performed in the first six movies for which, as far as we know, there was no moral equivalent in the Republic. And let's assume there is no Hiroshima-like nobler intention that it might not have actually saved lives by shortening the rebellion and preventing other uprisings. Other than that act of war, and the killing of individuals who had extended contact with the droid that held the plans for the Death Star, there are very few indications that ordinary people are worse off under the Empire in their day to day lives.
Sure. But aside from those RATHER LARGE exceptions, there's very little sign of ordinary people at all in the Empire era, so it's hardly surprising that we have nothing to compare to the Republic's security volunteers, bar-tenders and deathstick-dealers. (Again, not counting the slaves outside the Republic's influence; the Republic has anti-slavery laws good enough that Padme is shocked to learn slavery still exists in the Outer Rim.) There's a bar tender in A New Hope but we don't learn anything about him except that he is forced to tolerate open violence in his workplace.

In any case since we've established that the Empire is very bad for the people of Alderaan with whom they are not even at war, I'm content. That was my main point.
 

Hemlock

Should be playing D&D instead
I doubt the Empire would want the location of their top-secret military installation to become an economic hub.
They also don't seem to use wood, or care much about fertile soil. (What is moisture-farming anyway, and why didn't Uncle Ben just move to a non-desert planet like Dagobah?) Cloud City looks like a hydrogen- or helium-3-extraction facility. To the extent the galactic civilization cares about resources, it looks like metal and energy are their priorities.

Uuuuhhh so hey weapon vs armor class modifiers, huh? How do we feel about that?

And do we apply it to Monsters or only to demihuman(oid)s wearing literal armor?
I like the goal of differentiating and adding realism, but not the implementation. As you point out, the implementation doesn't work well with most monsters, who have neither damage types nor armor type listed. It's an incomplete implementation with not enough impact to justify the hassle.

DFRPG weapons are pretty nicely differentiated though. There's only one weapon on the lists that has no reason to exist (saber). In contrast to AD&D there are "only" seven different polearms, and eighteen total ways of using them (e.g. poke with spike, slash with blade, swing spike for extra momentum), but all of them have situations where it makes sense for somebody to use them. Swords are great for individual duelists with a lot of money (like PCs) but even there various PCs have valid reasons to prefer axes (extra damage and cheaper), staves (good defense, high damage against unarmored foes), knives (good against wild animals like trolls, wolves), or spears (cheap, excellent damage against lightly armored targets, can be used with a shield).
 
Last edited:

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
the Republic has anti-slavery laws good enough that Padme is shocked to learn slavery still exists in the Outer Rim.
I didn't remember this. It still doesn't explain the Clones.

Uuuuhhh so hey weapon vs armor class modifiers, huh? How do we feel about that?
One of my problems with many of the fiddly simulationist rules is they were invented by a dude who didn't actually have any practical experience with weapons, armor or combat, so you are complicating your system in order to add an inaccurate simulation. Like, with a footman's mace, why do you have an easier time hitting someone with a shield than you do hitting someone who is buck naked?

I rarely find it worth the effort, except for intuitive no-brainers, like bonuses if you are attacking from the rear, or penalties if the target has cover.

As an aside, it really annoys me how useless helms are in D&D. Until you get into really heavy armors, the first thing you want is a helm, which in D&D provides no AC improvement. And arguably a shield might be even more important - historically it was added to kit before body armor - but it only adds one point of AC, whereas one would think it would be better than at least the inferior types of body armor.
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
If you don't wear a helm in AD&D as part of you AC you receive an effective penalty. Ye old 1 in 6 is at your AC 10 head (by intelligent creatures).

The way that works out probabilistically, is an AC penalty of between 2 and 4 dependent on what you are wearing.

You may not love that, but it's there.

I like the WvsAC effect that creates a possible interest in weapons other than long swords, etc. It's tactical and still pretty simple---even if there is room for debate on realism. I've started using it and don't mind it.
 

Hemlock

Should be playing D&D instead
I didn't remember this. It still doesn't explain the Clones.
It partly explains though why all the Jedi felt so uneasy about the clones. Although another big part of it was unease at having a massive professional army for the chief executive to play with. If Palpatine hadn't first engineered a massive war I don't know what they would have done with the clone troopers--freed them? Exiled them? Both?
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
If you don't wear a helm in AD&D as part of you AC you receive an effective penalty. Ye old 1 in 6 is at your AC 10 head (by intelligent creatures).

The way that works out probabilistically, is an AC penalty of between 2 and 4 dependent on what you are wearing.
I remember that rule; it was actually 1 in 6 for any creature, or 1 in 2 for intelligent creatures. It was a rule that effectively meant everyone wore a helm; you may as well have increased the cost of armor by 10 gp, assumed it included a helm, and deleted the rule.

I guess you had to take off a helm to listen at doors, but even in the unlikely event that you forgot to put on your helm before opening said door (asshole DM: "You didn't say you were putting your helm back on, heh heh heh, oh, and you aren't holding a sword or shield because your helm is in your hands") a straight penalty would have been more efficient punishment.
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
Yup. I was a lazy typist.

Are you now poo-pooing the very thing you were complaining was absent? You need a holiday.
 

EOTB

So ... slow work day? Every day?
And do we apply it to Monsters or only to demihuman(oid)s wearing literal armor?
The DMG tells you it's intended only for those wearing literal armor, but the DM may choose to extend it (this is however, "off-label", and the DM is on their own).
 

EOTB

So ... slow work day? Every day?
I remember that rule; it was actually 1 in 6 for any creature, or 1 in 2 for intelligent creatures. It was a rule that effectively meant everyone wore a helm; you may as well have increased the cost of armor by 10 gp, assumed it included a helm, and deleted the rule.

I guess you had to take off a helm to listen at doors, but even in the unlikely event that you forgot to put on your helm before opening said door (asshole DM: "You didn't say you were putting your helm back on, heh heh heh, oh, and you aren't holding a sword or shield because your helm is in your hands") a straight penalty would have been more efficient punishment.
The book cost of armor includes a basic helm. Why increase the book cost?

Yes, Gygax put a rule in to address something happening at his table. Clearly the players felt taking off helmets was a good risk/reward. So his table perhaps played differently than someone else's. Just as you aren't making rulings at your table with me in mind, and I am not ruling at my table with you in mind, Gygax was not necessarily ruling at his table (and thus in the books) with your table dynamics and my table dynamics in mind. For obvious reasons if you stop to think about all the tables in the world.
 
Top