I guess also how far do you extend this sacredness?
Your use of the term "sacred" is way off the mark and misses the point.
Actually, I don't think it does. It makes exactly the point that I wanted it to and I chose the word deliberately. An untouchable status is being granted to certain name PCs, in particular Vader but others mentioned in this thread also. I particularly want to know how far that extends - to Jabba, to Boba Fett? Uncle Owen. Is Greedo immune to anything the PCs might try? I never got the impression from the stories that he should be, but if he isn't then at what point do you suddenly start adding this plot immunity to characters? It's relevant because I want to know what makes one character special and another not? (And if Greedo does have plot immunity aren't the players going to get pissed off if you as GM keep hand-waving reasons why some low-live bounty-hunter survives?)
As I wrote earlier, we've most of us been in a game where a GM has a pet NPC that they keep stopping the PCs from beating - and it's very annoying, ime.
It's about context and flavour. SW is too huge to bother with stories that have already been told, other than the framework they provide (which is now available in more detail via sourcebooks).
Part of the appeal of Star Wars for many people is the characters. Yes, it might be cool to fly an X-Wing. But for many people encountering Vader could be the defining moment of the campaign. I'm sketching out a series of adventures at the moment, and I hope to have an absolutely heart-stopping moment where the PCs become aware that Vader is on the planet. I may want to include some of the named NPCs from the setting and I'm certain other people do as well.
Basically, you say Star Wars games shouldn't bother with the existing stories, but another GM may feel differently. Which brings me back to my much earlier comment that having stats doesn't make anyone have to use them, but not having them does make the opposite harder.
If they eventually statted these characters I guess I wouldn't care, I'd just ignore them. (Well, they did stat Lando, but wisely with a caveat...) The fact that they haven't bodes well for me, it feels like maybe the designers share that sense that SW tales can finally move beyond the movies and the characters in them, and we won't be seeing precious space and developer time wasted catering to pointless mechanical desires.
And it's fine that it would be a waste of space for you, but I get the feeling that you're not arguing from the basis of not caring, but actively thinking they shouldn't. Correct?
In an earlier post you mentioned something about "fairness", which I found completely at odds with how I game, and seems at odds with this game. It kind of sounds "adversarial" in that you and your players are more concerned with whether the other is cheating or not. The point of GMing to me is to provide a great time for the players, and invariably that point comes when they suspend their disbelief, they think they're on the ropes, and somebody's clever solution and/or amazing dice roll saves the day. If I stat something poorly, it would be unfair of me not to correct it somehow, so long as I can make it seem like it was the plan all along. It saves the experience.
Having stats is a way for me to make things less adversarial. If I say Vader has stats X,Y and Z, then whatever happens in the game the players know (or at least trust) that I'm playing fair whatever they come up with. If I am arbitrarily saying "blast doors cannot stop Vader" or "you lose" as some in this thread are suggesting, then that feels adversarial to me - the players have no chance whatever they do, and I as GM and simply taking away the meaning of any choice they make. I'm no longer neutral, but deciding on outcomes according to preference.
Regarding "if you stat something poorly", then correcting a mistake is one thing. E.g. if I realize later on that Vader shouldn't have a lightsaber skill of 3 and even the forsake Jedi has higher, then I'm correcting a mistake and that's qualitatively different to the scenario in which I say: "hmmmm, Vader is losing. I'll give him some extra talents so that he doesn't". The latter appears to be what you have in mind.
It's seems odd to me that you find my use of "fairness" so opaque. I feel players should know that I'm not altering the game world on the fly to achieve my desired outcome. They are active agents in the story, not pawns for me to tell the story with that I want.
After all, who wouldn't want to try to win an opposed Negotiation check with Darth Vader?
Very much this! My own example earlier was someone (presumably very high XP) duelling Vader so the rest of the team could escape. That would be an epic moment for any player after the game to say they went toe-to-toe with the Big Guy himself, maybe saving her team mates in the process.
Edited by knasserII
