My player levitates enemies and then lets them go. We use the falling damage rules. It's pretty powerful. From Short range, a person falling takes 10 wounds and 10 strain, and the strain cannot be soaked. It's almost instant knockout. And you don't need to purchase the Control upgrade to hurl an object.

I'm toying with the idea of forcing a Discipline roll whenever using Move with the goal of injuring people, but for a human-sized target, that's still only a difficulty 1 task.

I'm brand new to the game and this forum, but if this is disruptive you should nip it in the bud. The game is about cinematic gameplay and recreating the feel of the movies. None of the force users levitate people and drop them. Whenever something is levitated it usually rises very slowly and takes all of the force user's concentration. I think you'd be justified by telling the player that he can levitate people, but it takes multiple rounds for them to rise to a dangerous height and if he's hit while doing this he needs to perform a hard discipline roll or something similar or else drop them on the spot.

Simply explain this to the player from whatever perspective works best. They should understand. And they still have the option to force push et. al. as within the rules of the game.

Consider as a possible consolation that he can continue the PC's actions with the risk of taking on a Dark Side (or Criminal, or whatever) Obligation and possibly drawing unwanted attention to him or to his companions. Now, it becomes his decision to take on that Obligation.

But hey, if adding and increasing Obligation due to PC's deliberate actions and decisions is wrong then man, I never wanna be right.

If it's his decision, what is he getting in exchange for taking on that Obligation?

What if he declines to take on the Obligation but still takes the action(s) you don't like?

The ability to take that action.

Then the gm describes how the fantasy in his head plays out then says "but since you aren't willing to accept the consequences that doesn't happen. What do you do instead?"

Consider as a possible consolation that he can continue the PC's actions with the risk of taking on a Dark Side (or Criminal, or whatever) Obligation and possibly drawing unwanted attention to him or to his companions. Now, it becomes his decision to take on that Obligation.

But hey, if adding and increasing Obligation due to PC's deliberate actions and decisions is wrong then man, I never wanna be right.

If it's his decision, what is he getting in exchange for taking on that Obligation?

What if he declines to take on the Obligation but still takes the action(s) you don't like?

The ability to take that action.

Then the gm describes how the fantasy in his head plays out then says "but since you aren't willing to accept the consequences that doesn't happen. What do you do instead?"

You can't seem to separate consequences from Obligation. The two are distinct and only come together if the player chooses. It's a player resource, not a GM control mechanism.

It's a GM narrative tool.

Obligation takes the place of flaws/drawbacks/complications from other systems, said systems always allow the GM to tack more onto your sheet due to gameplay events. There is zero difference here. Yes there are consequences that might be completely separate from obligation, but anything long term is represented by it. That's all it is, a way to measure long term complications that might crop up without being the main plot.

It's a GM narrative tool.

Obligation takes the place of flaws/drawbacks/complications from other systems, said systems always allow the GM to tack more onto your sheet due to gameplay events. There is zero difference here. Yes there are consequences that might be completely separate from obligation, but anything long term is represented by it. That's all it is, a way to measure long term complications that might crop up without being the main plot.

That's not all that it is. That's not even what it primarily is. It's a character resource. By taking on Obligation, you gain something immediate and directly in exchange for increasing your Obligation (the gain is something beyond the direct consequences of your actions). It's not for measuring long term complications unless those complications are ones that you elected to take Obligation from for a tangible gain.

You can be a criminal without the Criminal Obligation. You can have a bounty on you without the Bounty Obligation. You can have family without the Family Obligation. You can betray someone without the Betrayal Obligation. You can have an addiction or obsession without the Addiction/Obsession Obligation.

Having the Obligation means you spent a character resource for gain and now have a descriptive 'tag' applied for later. The Obligation meter keeps you from doing this too often, but it should only go up if the player elects to take on Obligation (for gain) or if he ignores an activated Obligation three times.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree about those interpretations. I would never allow someone to willingly take obligation in game without actually playing out what they did to get it. Which is exactly the same as doing something that would get you a benefit but result in a warrant for your arrest and the GM saying "sure but your criminal obligation will go up".

Here's a few examples:

Taking on Criminal Obligation to get out of lockup on lesser charges.

Taking Family Obligation to get a desired piece of gear as a 'birthday present' conveniently delivered to you.

Taking Betrayal Obligation to gain information from the Bothan Spynet (you exchanged info on someone that trusted you).

Taking Addiction Obligation as a result of 'hard partying' to make the connections needed for a job.

In all cases, the Obligation is taken on to gain something (goods or services).

And you could just as easily do those in character, for the same benefit. I don't see why handwaving it is somehow more valid than doing it in character.

"I'll confess to the robbery but not the four dead imperials."

"Hey Mom, Did you remember to tell rich Uncle Bob my birthday list?" (Attmitadly I wouldn't allow that one at all, random gifts seems cheap and gamey)

*streetwise roll* "Hey Mr. Bothan, here's some dirt on Governor black market connections for you if you give me the codes to that droid factory." *negotiation roll*

Fun RP scene. Player would have to agree to that one explicitly though.

Yes, you could do those things through in-character roleplay. However, sometimes it's better to just spend a resource, resolve the outcome 'off screen', and be done with it. For situations where cash isn't the deciding factor, Obligation offers another currency.

Consider as a possible consolation that he can continue the PC's actions with the risk of taking on a Dark Side (or Criminal, or whatever) Obligation and possibly drawing unwanted attention to him or to his companions. Now, it becomes his decision to take on that Obligation.

But hey, if adding and increasing Obligation due to PC's deliberate actions and decisions is wrong then man, I never wanna be right.

If it's his decision, what is he getting in exchange for taking on that Obligation?

What if he declines to take on the Obligation but still takes the action(s) you don't like?

I appreciate your input into my playstyle but I'm not concerned with convincing you that how I would run my table is correct or not.

Back to Snapeye, something that might help for future campaigns is a Session Zero where you and the players discuss and come to an agreement on what role the Dark Side has or may have in the campaign that you all will be crafting. Talk about what actions "lead down the path of the Dark Side" and what the types of consequences could be. When the players start making suggestions about what those could be, be they mechanical (like simply not allowing it through fiat or other tools like obligation) or purely narrative, then you will know that you have player buy-in. So much about Game Mastering relies on the social contract between GM and Player and it's important that both you and your players are on the same page, so to speak.

This is a really great way to "nip this in the bud" before it even begins since trying to curtail behavior after the fact is sometimes much harder. If you haven't had this discussion with your players before and neither you nor your players are interested in ending the current campaign and starting a new one, then perhaps you can do a "Session Five-and-a-Half" (or whatever session number you happen to be on) and hash all this out.

Some great information on how to construct your Session Zero either for you, others who may be following this thread, or those who find it in the future:

• Doc, the Weasel has EotE specific info here —

  Session 0 – Our Player Generated Setting for Star Wars Edge of the Empire

• There are several links in this WotC forum post —

  Session Zero

How about just kill the Force guy? He honestly isn't entitled to be surprised when a squad of stormtroopers shows up packing HBRs and LRBs, they did in Star Wars. Kill might be a little harsh but when all the opposition starts concentrating fire on him every conflict and yelling "kill the Jedi first" I bet he will get the hint.

Ha, I give all my villains rocket boots and it's obvious that an escalation is happening. I wouldn't be able to keep a straight face. And if I passive-aggressively let him tear through all competition until there's no drama, then he feels guilty, like he's done something wrong, and eventually starts disrespecting the rules. It finally ends with him facing off against a Sith lord, and they alternate rounds Force dropping each other until one passes out. Thrilling.

Escalation is allowed, especially if he keeps doing it to important organizations, like Imperial authorities, Criminal organizations, or a major Nemesis.

Using powers like that is a big 'I'm here, please kill me, my dearest Empire,' and the Inquisitorious will answer. With more power. Or Jabba will send an assassin. Or a Vigo will. They might even send legions of mooks. Hovering death droids! Aliens that cannot take fall damage because their death amoebas or have springs for legs. But regardless they'll know his tactics and it'll be a fun encounter.

Always make the Athletics or Coordination drop reduction roll as well, and upgrade a Yellow die (being honest about Destiny Point use... or not). Maybe with some more successes there will not be autokills. Maybe with a Triumph you can have the lifted party grab a ledge, roll with being launched into the air, have someone catch him, or land somewhere that can break the antagonists fall without instant killing.

If you face him off against a Sith lord, don't have the Sith lord take fall damage. Make up an ability that lets them, as long as their aware of the sudden fall, commit a Force die to negate falling. Why? Well because there' a precident in the Clone Wars shows (which are canon) where Jedi and Sith jump out of ridiculous high places and use the Force to stop their fall taking nothing but a knee and a smirk.

Then what? Well then fun begins, because in all of these situations this character and Player of yours has to think outside of the box.

Let them kill Joe Stormtrooper #128 or Angry Bar Patron with this tactic since, well, they don't really have to live anyway.

Falling damage works outdoors or in rooms with really high ceilings. Even outdoors there are things that can screw up your Rise and Fall of the Roman Stormtrooper.

Trees for one. What happens to a force user who lacks the speed upgrade and the upgrade that allows separating things? If the guy you are lifting grabs a tree branch (or railing, handle, etc.) the low level Force Mover likely doesn't have the juice to separate them and thus can't make people fall far enough to do damage.

Indoors a ten foot (3m) ceiling isn't high enough that the fall should hurt all that bad. IRL most people can take a fall like that. Especially, if they know it's coming.

If you as the GM don't want the Force Sensitive to up-and-at-em just spend a Destiny point to have a handle somewhere nearby. No roll required.

'A jedi uses the force for knowledge and defense. Never for attack.'-Yoda

Picking up and dropping people, with the intent to harm them, is without question, a dark side use of the force. If your player is doing this consistently, they will fall to the dark side, which, generally in Star Wars games, means that the player loses control of their character and it becomes an NPC. The question you need to ask yourself is do you want a dark-side PC in your game. If not, then warn the player that this will be the consequence of continuing down the dark path.

'A jedi uses the force for knowledge and defense. Never for attack.'-Yoda

Picking up and dropping people, with the intent to harm them, is without question, a dark side use of the force. If your player is doing this consistently, they will fall to the dark side, which, generally in Star Wars games, means that the player loses control of their character and it becomes an NPC. The question you need to ask yourself is do you want a dark-side PC in your game. If not, then warn the player that this will be the consequence of continuing down the dark path.

Except in the prequels where jedi seem to have minimal problems force tossing people when need be.

And that's not even counting the video games, You know how many people I've made Kyle Katarn force choke over a 100 foot drop then let go?

I mean, I agree with you, but everything that's come after seems to have retconned that line into a suggestion.

'A jedi uses the force for knowledge and defense. Never for attack.'-Yoda

Picking up and dropping people, with the intent to harm them, is without question, a dark side use of the force. If your player is doing this consistently, they will fall to the dark side, which, generally in Star Wars games, means that the player loses control of their character and it becomes an NPC. The question you need to ask yourself is do you want a dark-side PC in your game. If not, then warn the player that this will be the consequence of continuing down the dark path.

Except in the prequels where jedi seem to have minimal problems force tossing people when need be.

And that's not even counting the video games, You know how many people I've made Kyle Katarn force choke over a 100 foot drop then let go?

I mean, I agree with you, but everything that's come after seems to have retconned that line into a suggestion.

Force-tossing droids (what Jedi did throughout the prequels and in TCW) is another thing. There are a few examples here and there of Jedi using the Force directly on flesh-and-blood opponents, but those are few and far between. Even so, such Force usage—even against droids—was thought to be a contributor in the downfall of the Jedi order by quietly robbing them of their ideals.

In any case, what the PC in question is doing (apparently as a standard practice) is tantamount to premeditated murder. Totally Dark Side, without question. No retcon needed. If we were playing Saga, that PC would be getting a Dark Side Point from me each time he lifted an opponent in the air and then dropped them to their death.

In any case, what the PC in question is doing (apparently as a standard practice) is tantamount to premeditated murder. Totally Dark Side, without question. No retcon needed. If we were playing Saga, that PC would be getting a Dark Side Point from me each time he lifted an opponent in the air and then dropped them to their death.

Whoa. Look, I was one of the first in this thread to suggest visiting dark side repercussions with the character. But premeditated murder? What about shooting at someone with a blaster? Or swinging a lightsaber? Every combat is tantamount to both sides trying to kill each other. I think your reaction is a bit extreme here.

IMO, lifting someone in the air is not even a dark side action. Not at all. Its the dropping them without any hint of hesitation, regret or remorse that would have me, as a GM, start to address the characters slow descent into evil. The fact that the character does it routinely leads me to believe this is the case, sure. But can I imagine situations wherein it would be justified? Probably. A few. Even necessary. But motive and intent need to be factored. And that's something between the GM and the player. Not us.

Were I playing a character capable of such things, I would lift an opponent up and ask them to surrender. Beg them not to make me hurt them. Appeal to their sense of helplessness first. That shows that the character is trying to do the right thing. Not just playing pinball on a world scale for the fun of it.

Whoa. Look, I was one of the first in this thread to suggest visiting dark side repercussions with the character. But premeditated murder? What about shooting at someone with a blaster? Or swinging a lightsaber? Every combat is tantamount to both sides trying to kill each other. I think your reaction is a bit extreme here.

That depends on how the force is viewed. Going off setting for a moment, the Dresden files novels have a main character who will will not under any circumstances, kill a human being with magic, viewing it as a perversion of a beautiful gift and the life force of the universe (and because doing so starts a slow decent into madness).

So he carries around a 45. revolver that he isn't shy about using when the situation warrants it.

The same thing could easily be applied to a force user, killing can occasionally be justified, but when you use the life force of the universe to do it it is perverse and evil.

So we are looking at other stories, in other universes, using other supernatural forces, to explain what we can an can't do now?

What about using the force to hurl a big chunk of machinery at someone? Or chuck a huge bolder at them?

'A jedi uses the force for knowledge and defense. Never for attack.'-Yoda

I realize this will brand me a heretic in the eyes of many, but so be it.

This quote while a cool pit of prose is naive to the point of stupidity. Jedi use lightsabers guided by the Force to kill people all the time. How is that any different from using the Force to directly kill someone? You can't build a lightsaber without the Force, so isn't that using the Force to attack?

I expect that Yoda is being metaphorical in his use of the terms "attack" and "defense". If killing someone will protect others then use the Force. If you are merely using the Force to get your way then that's a no-no. In other words don't be the aggressor, but if you need to finish something then by all means.

My problem with the lift and drop use of the Force is that we never see it in cannon. Not even with droids. It only shows up in video games. Jedi and Sith use repulse type powers all the time, but in combat it is always directly away from the force user. The closest we get to a combat lift is when Yoda flings the two guards as he confronts Palpatine. Even there given Yoda's height the movement is directly away from him.

If a PC likes lift and drop, my suggestion is to get a new friend. There are six billion people on the Earth; most of them are not turds.

'A jedi uses the force for knowledge and defense. Never for attack.'-Yoda

I realize this will brand me a heretic in the eyes of many, but so be it.

This quote while a cool pit of prose is naive to the point of stupidity. Jedi use lightsabers guided by the Force to kill people all the time. How is that any different from using the Force to directly kill someone? You can't build a lightsaber without the Force, so isn't that using the Force to attack?

I expect that Yoda is being metaphorical in his use of the terms "attack" and "defense". If killing someone will protect others then use the Force. If you are merely using the Force to get your way then that's a no-no. In other words don't be the aggressor, but if you need to finish something then by all means.

My problem with the lift and drop use of the Force is that we never see it in cannon. Not even with droids. It only shows up in video games. Jedi and Sith use repulse type powers all the time, but in combat it is always directly away from the force user. The closest we get to a combat lift is when Yoda flings the two guards as he confronts Palpatine. Even there given Yoda's height the movement is directly away from him.

If a PC likes lift and drop, my suggestion is to get a new friend. There are six billion people on the Earth; most of them are not turds.

I think people are a little too literal when it comes to use of the Force. If someone is attacking you and you have to use Force to save yourself, you are 'defending' yourself. Even if you are using the Force in an offensive manner, if it's in a way to defend yourself or particularly others that's one thing.

Having said that, just picking people up and dropping them as a routine is dark side. I think part of what Yoda was teaching was restraint and humility because once you lose those you start towards the dark side. If you use the Force just because you can, it's easy, quicker, you're losing restraint.

Agreed. With the extreme take some folks have WRT what constitutes dark side behavior, playing a force user would be like walking on eggshells. It would be too stressful to play and have any fun for me. It wouldn't be worth the headaches always having to defend every tiny, little action I took using the Force.

I think intent and totality of the circumstances apply to Force usage the same way they apply to any use of 'force'.

So we are looking at other stories, in other universes, using other supernatural forces, to explain what we can an can't do now?

What about using the force to hurl a big chunk of machinery at someone? Or chuck a huge bolder at them?

It is a comparison. Yoda's comments on the force match the use of supernatural power in this other setting. It's meant to be more a "this is how a similar mindset is portrayed in a different 'verse"

Actually thinking more on this, Even in the OT Luke force choked one of Jabba's thugs and deflected blaster bolts with the intent to kill not just not die. So was probably a more philosophical thing. Though I imagine many jedi would consider any kind of offense a bit of a slippery slope deal.

So we are looking at other stories, in other universes, using other supernatural forces, to explain what we can an can't do now?

What about using the force to hurl a big chunk of machinery at someone? Or chuck a huge bolder at them?

It is a comparison. Yoda's comments on the force match the use of supernatural power in this other setting. It's meant to be more a "this is how a similar mindset is portrayed in a different 'verse"

Actually thinking more on this, Even in the OT Luke force choked one of Jabba's thugs and deflected blaster bolts with the intent to kill not just not die. So was probably a more philosophical thing. Though I imagine many jedi would consider any kind of offense a bit of a slippery slope deal.

Like I said, totality of the circumstances, he Force choked a goon in the context of being threatened while unarmed in the process of saving people's lives. Context and details matter.