| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10438
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:31 pm Post subject: Re: Death Stars |
 |
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | Hmm, come to think of it, maybe Palpatine arranged for Death Star plans to fall into rebel hands so he could eliminate Tarkin and the Death Star itself (the station would be a major threat). |
| Whill wrote: | | It is extremely obvious from the films that Lucas felt the Death Star was meant by Palpatine to be a deterrent to any level of rebellion against his authority. |
That was referring to the first Death Star.
| atgxtg wrote: | No it isn't. You quotes and example show that Tarkin felt that the Death Star was a good deterrent against rebellion. Even the attack on Aalderaan was Tarken's decision. Vader's comment on the Death Star seems to imply that he isn't that impressed with it.
Palpatine's thinking and plans are a lot harder to pin down. In ROTJ he doesn't use the second Death Star as a deterrent at all. He uses it as a trap. |
As previously stated...
| Whill wrote: | | After the first Death Star's destruction, I think it is clear that Palpatine had to take the Alliance more seriously and so devised the trap using the incomplete second Death Star as bait, which worked. But the first Death Star being made just to be destroyed and to eliminate Tarkin? That's absurd. I think Palpatine could have saved the trillions credits of secretly-funneled funds and just called Tarkin into his office and Force-choked him if he was a threat. |
I think Star Wars makes the most sense if Tarkin doesn't have the authority to destroy core worlds without Palpatine's approval because Palpatine is the Emperor. Vader's opinion about the Death Star was inconsequential because Vader and Tarkin both reported to Palpatine. Vader's comment about the the superlaser weapon was really just foreshadowing for the audience about the Force later being used to destroy the Death Star towards Lucas' message of not depending on technology.
atgxtg, this tangent discussion about the Death Star was in response to you suggesting the possibility that "Palpatine arranged for Death Star plans to fall into rebel hands so he could eliminate Tarkin and the Death Star itself". No offense, but that's silly. If Palpatine wanted to eliminate Tarkin, he could have done so easily. If he didn't want a Death Star, he wouldn't have had it built in the first place. Therefore, the first Death Star was built for a reason other than just to kill Tarkin. It is clear to me from the films why the first Death Star was built.
But just like stormtrooper clones vs. recruits, you are free to have the purpose of the first Death Star and Tarkin's level of authority be whatever you want in your own SWU. You don't have to convince anyone else.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Zarm R'keeg
Commander
Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Posts: 481
Location: PA
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2014 1:35 pm Post subject: Re: RE: George Lucas "nonsense" ? |
|
|
| Whill wrote: |
My explanations are based on the very idea that becoming a Force Ghost is an extremely rare power in the galaxy. If you reject the notion that Jedi don't all become Force Ghosts, then I fail to see why you would have any interest in my ideas. |
'Cause heck, I've been wrong before.  Whatever impression I may have given, I am not averse to revising my opinions on Star Wars- especially when it comes to accepting cool ret-cons. I'm stubborn, but I'm not completely bone-headed. I think. 
Plus, I'm always curious to hear new ideas.
As for the force ghosts... I can see your point. I'm not sure I agree (surprise, for Vader, is a somewhat subjective think to read into body language, clearly); I think the EU (and I) went for the fading/Force Ghosts idea because every Jedi we saw die (based on a sample size of 2) did so. I don't think that's a screw-up, or necessarily inconsistent with Vader thinking a disembodied spirit can't really help Luke in any tangible way... but I must admit, you do make a compelling case for that. I've argued for the necessity of no Jedi in the rebellion based on similar 'intended flavor to the lines.'
| Whill wrote: | | I admit I'm baffled by the widespread hatred for George Lucas among Star Wars fans. They love some of his products so much to come to websites like this one and talk about them, but they hate the man so much. Without George Lucas, there would not be ANY Star Wars, including the WEG SW RPG and the EU. Showing just a little respect for the genius who created this universe and franchise (and gave over $2 billion confirmed to charity) might go a long way to avoid pejorative labels like hater and troll. |
Well, I think I can shed some light on it, as I've considered it for a long time.
I don't think there are any SW fans that hate Lucas- merely have become resentful, disgruntled, or frustrated with some of his behavior and critfic perceived choices. And, I don't think there is anyone that- for lack of a better catch-all term- is 'frustrated' with 1977-1983 Lucas.
The problem is 1997-onwards Lucas, who seems to be a changed man. A man who has Greedo shoot first because he can't understand the characters he created two decades prior; one who has lost touch with the viewpoints and understanding and choices that made such classics. People play the 'a special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing' interview with sad irony, because to many (in the non-PT-enthusiast camp), that's exactly what the prequels are. The Lucas who said story should drive effects seems (to those who are frustrated) to have been replaced with a man who throws random effects into every scene just because he can. In essence, he's changed so much that he's not the same Lucas they loved and respected for creating Star Wars. He's grown into a new Lucas whose ideals have drifted, and has actively begun to damage the image of the same Star Wars that he made. They see two Lucases the one that created Star Wars (who they respect), and the one that's ruining it- and that's the guy they're ticked off at.
I have no doubt that if Lucas had died in the mid 90s, he would be venerated as a hero, given nothing but 100% respect- but it's like the Dark Knight. "You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."
Now, I can't speak for everyone in that 'frustrated' group- but I think the perception is this: Out-of-touch 90s George doesn't know how to tell stories anymore. His dialogue is terrible, his plots are boring, his continuity with his own past ideas is poor, and his moviemaking style has grown inept- bloated and empty, full of flahsy effects and lacking the heart that it used to have. (Obviously, to those that enjoyed the prequels, such notions do not ring true- but I am trying to explain an alien perspective.)
Beyond that, to this group, George has used that inept approach to start altering Star Wars; introducing things that (again, to this group) detract from its greatness. That's a whole other discussion; you know which ones the vocal fans hate. Regardless, that's where we get into George's relationship with the fans, and where this whole thing explodes.
Because these fans love Star Wars. They treasure it, even obssess over it. It's a part of their childhood, integra to shaping what they love and dream about. I hardly have to explain to any of you how important Star Wars can be, especially if you grew up with it, I'm sure. And some fans- because of that significance to childhood and deep affection, get a bit posessive of it, I think.
When 90s-Lucas comes in and starts changing things, they cry foul. "This means a lot to us," they say, "And you're wrecking it!" "So?" says Lucas. "They're my movies. I can do what I want to them- you don't have to like it." And he is right about that. But, it doesn't exactly sooth hurt feelings or come across as a diplomatic manuever. (Which he is not obligated to- but you trample toes, and then don't appologize, and even if the other party never had a legitimate greivance, they'll still grow resentful; emotion works that way).
Many of these fans also loved the EU; they grew up with it, just like the films- it WAS their Star Wars, at a time there was nothing else. Then, 90s/00s Lucas comes in with a wrecking ball and starts chipping away at it. "Hey!" they say, "That means a lot to us; when you stopped giving us new Star Wars, that became our Star Wars, and we treasure it deeply!" "Too bad," says Lucas. "It isn't my story. I'm not going to consider it, or spare it- I'm giving you new Star Wars, so just get over your attachments to it." And once again, he has that right- but it sure rubs these fans the wrong way.
In the end, they feel disrespected by Lucas. And he might not really *owe* them any respect... but they still feel mistreated; they feel like someone who has lost touch with his talent has come in and started wallpapering over what's important to them with inferior scribbles. And so, they lash back- mocking and magnifying the flaws of his new products, creating t-shirts boldly proclaiming Han Solo's proclivity for firing first, and generally telling Lucas that they reject his work in the way that they feel he, in not listening or caring as he bulldozed through what they treasured, rejected them.
Fair? Probably not. But it happens.
And unfortunately, it builds into a cycle. Lucas, who is in the right legally and probably morally (if not necessarily... 'ettiquetely'?), sees people mocking his movies, Star Wars fans angry at him for what he chooses to do with his product, and (and this is complete critfic and pop psychology, so I could be completely wrong) gets bitter, I think. He takes the Clone Wars and starts intentionally and pointlessly stepping on parts of the EU, just to assert the control and right to change things that some fans seem to be in denial over. He also tries to integrate some things, like Quinlan Vos, as a peace offering (but, from the fans perspective, does it with out-of-touch-90s-Lucas ineptness, creating an inferior version of the character that misses the point of the original, just as he did with the movies as a whole). When they reject it, he becomes even more resentful- and when he asserts the control (which is rightfully his, if perhaps best not exercised in the way he is exercising it) and messes more with the EU, the fans resent him more in turn- a vicious self-magnifying circle.
In the end, I think that's it. The frustrated fans feel disrespected by George, George feels disrespected by the fans- and the magnify off each other. They see him as losing his touch, he sees them as ungrateful. They see him as a tyrant (ruling the franchize as is his right, but doing so cruelly, and not in the way he ought, to use a melodramatic example) while he sees them as rebelling (so attached to what he considers obsolete film-versions or stories that are not a part of 'his' Star Wars that they forget he is still the one in charge).
That's how I see it, anyhow. I can hardly speak for fandom at large, or George Lucas- just analyze from the sidelines.
As for how that applies to 'George's Vision,' for those fans, it is frustrating to hear Clone Wars/film change/retcon/anti-EU sentiment that is grounded on 'that's the way it was always meant to be in George's Vision,' 'you can't do that because it's not in George's vision,' 'it is no longer this because it doesn't match George's vision,' etc. because it implies some golden standard and timeless rule... and since they see Lucas as a once-genius who has perhaps lost touch with good storytelling, making every decision simply based on whether it matches a vision that they feel has grown cloudy is a frustrating, Emperor's New Clothes kind of scenario- everything is not good and perfect just because the Emperor says it. (Incidentally, I'm sorry if I appeared to be overreacting; gettin'-kinda-personal-there comments aside, my MO is more frequently to seize on a topic under discussion and launch off an a separate-but-related discussion/diatribe, because the topic of conversation has come up. Since I do so frequently and with poor transitioning, apparently, it comes off as a major mountain-out-of-molehill point in the original debate, rather than a separate-from-the-debate side discussion inspired BY one of the original points.)
As to how all this fits in with us, I think we have a culture clash going on. Believe me, being considered a troll or hater or bearer of unkind tidings is as shocking to me as I suppose my sentments must be to you. I feel like I repesent a large segment of fandom (one I would have said was a majority before these recent conversations, as I'm sure you would of your own), and it never even occurred to me that these would be shocking or offensive opinions.
To use a political metaphor, I kinda picture it a lone Democrat strolling into a small town in Texas, or a Republican strolling into a social club in Boston. Where they're from, everyone things the way that they do, so it's natural and the way things are. To the assembled crowd, this outsider is some uncouth weirdo with all these strange ideas, unacceptable to polite company- whereas to the individual, he's just a representative of a large majority elsewhere. Does that make sense? I'm shocked to hear 'hater' or 'troll,' because to me, this is how 'everyone' talks about Star Wars, and what everyone believes about it. Whereas to you (and again, more assumption on my part), the way you feel about it is how you've seen 'everyone' talk about Star Wars, and feel about- making my viewpoint this strange alien thing that seems like a bitter, vengeful little aberration. Am I right? I think that may be what's happening here.
Anyhow, long post- I've been formulating my theory of the relationship between George and *some* fans, and why it is the way it is... this gives me the chance to finally air it.
| Whill wrote: | | I'm starting to give the ideas of fans who profess to love Star Wars yet illogically despise its creator less weight than the ideas of its creator, so I guess I have my biases too. 8) |
Again, you seem to be getting kinda personal here, Whill. I'm not trying to be your enemy; I'm really just trying to elucidate when I say something confusing, and discuss Star Wars from my own 'certain point of view' when I have something to say in a thread. Nothing more.
In terms of the illogic, let me give you this example. Trekies love Star Trek. They (not universally, but most) love TOS, and the things Roddenberry came up with. They love TNG, they love DS9. They also love Wrath of Kahn and The Undiscovered Country, and no one thinks too highly of TNG's first lackluster season.
Roddenberry created TOS, and is beloved for it; for the concepts he created. But he was also the main driving force behind TNG's first season, and many of the show's flaws stem directly from is directives, which are generally considered to be poor storytelling concepts. Roddenberry also opposed TWOk and TUC for their more-military direction, which many fans disagree with, considering them among the best of the movies. The Roddenberry-written movie, TMP, is largely loathed (I think unfairly, but still).
The point being that most Trekies generally agree that Rodenberry was a genius, and created something that they love... but also that it outgrew him, and as he aged, his ideas became terrible and out-of-touch with what made for good television. His 'vision' created Star Trek... but his 'vision' eventually grew to hamper Star Trek. He is not hated; he is respected (and again, when Lucas' changes recede into memory- and certainly after his passing- I think the respect will be all that is remembered; right now, the 'failures' are still too fresh, is all)- but it is still acknowledged that eventually he became bad for Star Trek and created inferior product, which others had to come in and rescue. It is not contradictory to love the creation but think the creator has ceased contributing positively to it- at least not to them (or me).
Outright hating the guy? Yeah, that'd be problematic. But I don't think that's happening. Reacting stronger in the negative as a counter to those who seem to be saying he can do no wrong? Yeah, I think that's probably happening- an over-emphasis of the negative to counter the perception of an over-positive. That is problematic, you are right, and something that all fans of this persuasion, myself included, need to curb.
But loving Star Wars independently of modern Lucas (respecting young Lucas while feeling that old Lucas has lost the spark and is kinda messing things up) is much like loving Trek independently of Roddenberry's later years; a franchise can grow bigger than its creator, and a creator can lose touch with what made him successful. Disrespect- though probably and unfortunately present- is not intended, and hatred is not a part of it.
| Whill wrote: |
I sometime spend too much time reading Wookieepedia. |
Is there truly such a thing?
| Whill wrote: | | I see no evidence of prequel clone-like training or discipline in the classic trilogy. |
Fair enough. I stand corrected. I should say "I see no evidence of the training or discipline we've come to expect from clones via the prequels, thus nothing to suggest a tie to cloning based on the films alone." I think that- as you suggest from your research- a retcon could be applied in either direction (clones or recruits); I just saw nothing in the films to *suggest* clones, based on the prior precedent of seeing clones in action.
However, I am nothing if not a loyal EUist- if the EU/Legends says they were partially clones, then partially clones they shall be in my game!
| Whill wrote: | | In a 1977 interview, Lucas also described that before Empire back in the time of the Republic, C-3PO had been (and I quote) "totally reassembled by a young boy working for a junk dealer." Really! 1977! |
Really? That is surprising! (And definitely not something that made it into any profile I read; presumably also forgotten). Where was that? (I am now curious what else I may have missed...)
_________________
Star Wars: Marvels, the audio drama: www.nolinecinemas.com
Hard core OT, all the way! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2014 5:36 pm Post subject: Re: Death Stars |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | But the first Death Star being made just to be destroyed and to eliminate Tarkin? That's absurd.
If Palpatine wanted to eliminate Tarkin, he could have done so easily. If he didn't want a Death Star, he wouldn't have had it built in the first place. Therefore, the first Death Star was built for a reason other than just to kill Tarkin. . |
If it were just to kill Tarkin, then yes- definately absurd. But Palpatine plays deep. THere could have been lots of other benefits to doing so.
Having the Death Star get blown up by the rebels also can be used to help Palaptine. It makes it much easier for him to villain-ize the rebel alliance. Instead of just being rebels they are terrorists who have murdered thousands of innocents aboard the Death Star.
Tarken's death could be used for propaganda purposes as well. Plus it makes it much easier to make even more restrictive laws to "protect the citizens".
Having the rebels kill of Tarken rather than doing so by Force Choke lets Palpaatine shift the blame. Plus, if Tarkin had any co-conspirators they wouldn't suspect that Palpatine was one to them.
If there were anyonbe else on the Death Star that Palpy wanted killed off, a promotion and last minute posting could have eliminated them.
Even the mega-credit loss could be viewed as advantageous to Palpatine money spent on the Death Star was money that Tarkin couldn't spent on other things.
And the whole incident did put Luke on the radar. I don't thing Palpatine wouldn't have hesitated for a second at throwing away a Death Star or two if it meant that he could upgrade his apprentice.
Now, I'm not claiming that things did happen for a particular reason (i.e to kill Tarkin), just that Palpatine is so devious that practically anything that happens in the films - other than getting tossed down the shaft in the throne room - could have been part of one of Palpatine's plots. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10438
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2014 9:22 pm Post subject: Re: RE: George Lucas "nonsense" ? |
|
|
| Zarm R'keeg wrote: | | Whill wrote: | | In a 1977 interview, Lucas also described that before Empire back in the time of the Republic, C-3PO had been (and I quote) "totally reassembled by a young boy working for a junk dealer." Really! 1977! |
Really? That is surprising! (And definitely not something that made it into any profile I read; presumably also forgotten). Where was that? (I am now curious what else I may have missed...) |
I own many sources with Star Wars lore, and have read several other sources over the years. I have actually have some highly-valuable Star Wars collectables, like some 80s Starlog magazines in near-mint condition that were valued at over $100 each 10 years ago. I never forgot about stormtroopers being clones and I do still have the source (but sadly that one is not in great shape).
I had also come across the Threepio backstory a long time ago and but forgot about it until seeing TPM and even then I thought maybe I had dreamt it until The Making of Star Wars by J.W. Rinzler (2007). The complete text from three 1977 interviews is included as a part of the deluxe edition bonus material. I shelled out some bucks to get this book in hardback just for the extra material (including other stuff). The original Star Wars film has always been my favorite episode, and it is the basis of everything that followed.
Now the interview doesn't connect Threepio specifically to Anakin or in any way identify the boy who put Threepio together, but at least a part of the idea of Anakin building Threepio as a boy working for a junk dealer did exist in the 70s. I personally think it is cool that Threepio (at least in reassembled form) starts out with Anakin, and Artoo starts out with Padme. In my SWU, after AotC Anakin gives Threepio to Padme and Padme gives Artoo to Anakin as wedding gifts to each other (which explains why the droids have switch owners in RotS).
Anyway, I don't think that the fact that Lucas devised part of Threepio's film "origin" in the 70s is particularly significant to the saga - I was just using that as yet another example of something that didn't enter officially continuity until the time of the prequels actually being invented in the 70s, like the existence of stormtrooper clones and the dreaded m-word.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zarm R'keeg
Commander
Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Posts: 481
Location: PA
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2014 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wow. That's a sweet haul. I was never sure if the bonus materials attached to those volumes were worth pursuing... perhaps now I will.
Incidentally, I think that the ROTS novelization also advances that wedding-gift theory. (If not there, it was elsewhere, but I believe that's the source I remember).
_________________
Star Wars: Marvels, the audio drama: www.nolinecinemas.com
Hard core OT, all the way! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2014 10:11 am Post subject: Re: RE: George Lucas "nonsense" ? |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | In my SWU, after AotC Anakin gives Threepio to Padme and Padme gives Artoo to Anakin as wedding gifts to each other (which explains why the droids have switch owners in RotS).
|
Aww, how sweet. And a great idea! That the droids were the witnesses at the wedding, and that the change was a better fit for the owners just makes it all the better.
I wish Lucas had thought of that. I would have added a nice touch of tenderness to the relationship. Even makes the droids staying together all that time seem nice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10438
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2014 10:05 pm Post subject: re: droids |
|
|
Thanks!
| Zarm R'keeg wrote: | | Incidentally, I think that the ROTS novelization also advances that wedding-gift theory. (If not there, it was elsewhere, but I believe that's the source I remember). |
You made me wonder where I got the idea, so I looked it up. According to Wookieepedia, only Threepio was given as wedding gift. Padme gave Artoo to Anakin when he became a Jedi Knight, which was originally 5-6 months before RotS, but was later moved back to about one month after they got married.
After the droids met in TPM, I'm ok with Artoo and Threepio only having worked with each other on occasion throughout the Clone Wars until they end up together on Mustafar. I think it makes too much sense for them both to be wedding gifts so I'm sticking my version. 8)
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zarm R'keeg
Commander
Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Posts: 481
Location: PA
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2015 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interestingly, the new Rebels Recon (little youtube special features tied to the Rebels animated episodes) just tackled the question posed in this thread title. (Starting around the 4:20 mark).
(Be forewarned, if you haven't seen the most recent episode, Path of the Jedi, the first half of this feature gives away some spoilers that you would probably NOT want to have, so you may wish to hold off until you've seen it.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulrZlv_Gezo
_________________
Star Wars: Marvels, the audio drama: www.nolinecinemas.com
Hard core OT, all the way! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DougRed4
Rear Admiral
Joined: 18 Jan 2013
Posts: 2286
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2015 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Good call, Zarm (strange that we have a Zarm and a Zarn here). And his explanation makes a lot of sense, too!
_________________
Currently Running: Villains & Vigilantes (a 32-year-old campaign with multiple groups) and D6 Star Wars; mostly on hiatus are Adventures in Middle-earth and Delta Green |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Barrataria
Commander
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 295
Location: Republic of California
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2015 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Actually, reading through all this stuff and Hidalgo's comments makes me think... it's in the Empire's interest to have varying qualities of troopers in identical armor. In game terms, players won't ever know for sure if they're getting the Endor "ow quit it" battalion or the guys from Hoth or Ep IV on Tatooine.
IMC I've always thought that the average run of the mill "Imperial trooper" is the most common and typical line soldier for both navy and army forces. Stormtroopers are "elite", but not like navy SEAL elite.
Now I've just had the thought that Stormtroopers are really Imperial marines, attached to star destroyers and able to conduct ship-to-ship actions or be deployed to planetary missions as well. I might run with it and leave the lackey jobs to regular troopers.
_________________
"A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing"- George Lucas |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DougRed4
Rear Admiral
Joined: 18 Jan 2013
Posts: 2286
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Of course, in addition to stormtroopers. there's also the other types of troopers (Death Star troopers, for instance). However one factors in who is 'elite' or not, you have to put all of those other troopers somewhere in your chart or list (either better, worse, the same, etc.).
_________________
Currently Running: Villains & Vigilantes (a 32-year-old campaign with multiple groups) and D6 Star Wars; mostly on hiatus are Adventures in Middle-earth and Delta Green |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14215
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 4:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Barrataria wrote: | Actually, reading through all this stuff and Hidalgo's comments makes me think... it's in the Empire's interest to have varying qualities of troopers in identical armor. In game terms, players won't ever know for sure if they're getting the Endor "ow quit it" battalion or the guys from Hoth or Ep IV on Tatooine.
|
With me, many of the higher up skilled "elite" groups often have certain arm/shoulder coverings/colors, showing their stature much like the 501st, or the 181 does.
But sometimes it is good to keep the players guessing which are which!
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wildfire
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 234
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
When I'm GMing a game I see stormtroopers as better than Imperial Army troops on the whole, though some special units within the IA are elite troops withal that that entails with regards to skills and equipment.
I also have three levels of experience for all NPC mooks just so my players can never be sure how tough a challenge is going to be.
So yes you can run into stormtroopers who can shoot the wings of a fly a 50 paces and those that have trouble hitting the broadside of a barn as well |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zarm R'keeg
Commander
Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Posts: 481
Location: PA
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Barrataria wrote: | | ...players won't ever know for sure if they're getting the Endor "ow quit it" battalion... |
That is perhaps the best description of the Battle of Endor that I've ever heard. 
_________________
Star Wars: Marvels, the audio drama: www.nolinecinemas.com
Hard core OT, all the way! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Barrataria
Commander
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 295
Location: Republic of California
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Zarm R'keeg wrote: | | Barrataria wrote: | | ...players won't ever know for sure if they're getting the Endor "ow quit it" battalion... |
That is perhaps the best description of the Battle of Endor that I've ever heard. |
Good thing the Emperor picked the cream of the crop to guard the all-important installation! The Fightin' 502: The Emperor's Bantha Pudu!
_________________
"A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing"- George Lucas |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
