Well that's just it. I don't get the need to compare my character to anything in the media. It's not a contest, what's the point? What matters is the context of the story they're in, not "Oooo, I'm a better pilot than Han Solo, somebody grab me a sock!"

And second, I can guarantee my players will never run into the iconic characters.

Some people's vision of the SW galaxy feels way too small.

I just explained my point I am gonna call BS bout your "PLAYERS" not meeting iconic characters cause eventually they will ...<snip>

Hilarious. You're actually telling me I HAVE to include iconic characters in my campaign? Just how tiny is your imagination, anyway?

Let's all hold hands and hug it out. Come on all - I'll bring the hot chocolate.

Yeah come on guys, let's keep it civil here.

This is our forum, a place for us all to hang out, talk about the nerdy thing we do. And get even nerdier by going into the math of it all. Like the percentages of rolling a dark side pip.

So come on lets just relax and not turn this topic, my topic into a heated debate, I know we all have our opinions.

Not everyone is going to see eye to eye, and we just have to live with that. All we can do is throw our two cents in NAND try and to enjoy the service this site offers us.

Thanks guys.

Hilarious. You're actually telling me I HAVE to include iconic characters in my campaign? Just how tiny is your imagination, anyway?

Oh boy really with imagination size Come on whafrog don't be butt hurt about it its Star Wars your bound to encounter an Iconic character and it has nothing do with with the size of a person imagination obviously we all have an imagination or we wouldn't be here

Butt-hurt? Hardly. Although I wouldn't presume to speak for him. Incredulous that you think you need iconic characters in a game in order for it to be Star Wars, maybe. If iconics are your thing, great. But they won't be in my game as more than a passing mention, unless, like Lando, they end up in an official adventure I'm running and I don't change it.

And as far as the whole running into iconics argument and the size of the galaxy.

I mean come on, ur really aren't about that. Just take a moment and step back your arguing about a game, that's based on a film, where there is what, about five main characters. Three films, and we follow five people in a whole galaxy.

You may argue that our imaginations might be small, but come on.

Hilarious. You're actually telling me I HAVE to include iconic characters in my campaign? Just how tiny is your imagination, anyway?

Oh boy really with imagination size Come on whafrog don't be butt hurt about it its Star Wars your bound to encounter an Iconic character and it has nothing do with with the size of a person imagination obviously we all have an imagination or we wouldn't be here

I have no idea why you're so insistent that my game has to include iconic characters. There could be a whole campaign set in the under-levels of Coruscant. Or a film noir detective campaign set on Corulag. Or, with the help of the Far Horizons book, a single colony. Or, something I'm currently working on, a take-down of the Zygerrian slave trade. None of which need to involve anything beyond the broad setting and background.

So there really is no point to statting these characters, it's a waste of the developer's time and book space.

That's a conclusion based entirely on the a priori assumption that beating named characters should not be allowed. Maybe one day I'll put Vader in the game. As noted, I'll almost certainly include Asoka. If one of the players fancies their chances they're welcome to try.

Hilarious. You're actually telling me I HAVE to include iconic characters in my campaign? Just how tiny is your imagination, anyway?

Oh boy really with imagination size Come on whafrog don't be butt hurt about it its Star Wars your bound to encounter an Iconic character and it has nothing do with with the size of a person imagination obviously we all have an imagination or we wouldn't be here

I have no idea why you're so insistent that my game has to include iconic characters. There could be a whole campaign set in the under-levels of Coruscant. Or a film noir detective campaign set on Corulag. Or, with the help of the Far Horizons book, a single colony. Or, something I'm currently working on, a take-down of the Zygerrian slave trade. None of which need to involve anything beyond the broad setting and background.

Ok umm I'm not saying you need them I'm just saying in a setting rich with iconic characters you bound to overlap or encounter the iconic characters and I'm saying for my own preference I would like to see the iconic characters stated to see if my character compares it's not like darth vader or obi wan are Gods

It's kinda laughable that you HAVE to include the iconic movie characters... as others have pointed out.

FFG themselves make it very clear that you can use or disregard canon as you see fit. If you want your players to blow up the Death Star or shoot Lando, you have their blessing to do so if you wish.

Furthermore, it's a huge galaxy... Assuming that you don't run your own version of events or set your game in some other era like the Revan or Cade eras.

I deliberately moved the movie characters to mentor roles, to give the PCs room to be the heroes, while hopefully preserving some of what made them awesome. And killed off the movie villains so they could have their own antagonists. And did a whole bunch of other stuff to make the game I wanted to play.

It's a role-playing game; make of it what you will. Just because our games may be very different, doesn't make them wrong. Part of why I come here is to learn what guys like whafrog above are doing with their campaigns.

I would rather not have pages in a book used to do that statting unless it is needed. there is a lot more useful information they can provide in a book.

Well I would expect that we would all like the books to be tailored to our exact taste.

It's kinda laughable that you HAVE to include the iconic movie characters... as others have pointed out.

FFG themselves make it very clear that you can use or disregard canon as you see fit. If you want your players to blow up the Death Star or shoot Lando, you have their blessing to do so if you wish.

Furthermore, it's a huge galaxy... Assuming that you don't run your own version of events or set your game in some other era like the Revan or Cade eras.

I deliberately moved the movie characters to mentor roles, to give the PCs room to be the heroes, while hopefully preserving some of what made them awesome. And killed off the movie villains so they could have their own antagonists. And did a whole bunch of other stuff to make the game I wanted to play.

It's a role-playing game; make of it what you will. Just because our games may be very different, doesn't make them wrong. Part of why I come here is to learn what guys like whafrog above are doing with their campaigns.

So there really is no point to statting these characters, it's a waste of the developer's time and book space.

That's a conclusion based entirely on the a priori assumption that beating named characters should not be allowed.

Not allowed? Hardly, people can do whatever they want. But I think it's entirely up to the GM to provide the power level. I'd expect named characters to be at the top of their game...fastest ship in the galaxy, best pilot, only remaining Jedi, hunter of Jedi, etc...if they weren't at the top of their game then the original story wouldn't be about them. So I'd expect if I had to--for some mystical reason--include named characters in my game, they'd probably be more than my player's characters could handle, whether the PCs had 150XP or whether they had 2000XP. If other people want to make named characters that can be beaten by 500XP PCs they're welcome to it, but if FFG did it it kind of sets a power cap, and I don't see why FFG would want to do that.

I'm not saying because they run a game different they are wrong you guys are saying it's wrong for me to want to see stated characters

It's not wrong for you to want to see characters statted out, but at the same time insisting that someone else's game must include iconic characters from the films is also misguided.

Am I interested in how Vader might look, especially now with the F&D beta out? Sure. But as they saying goes "if it has stats, we can kill it."

In some cases, such as having Lando Calrissian's presence as the Baron Administrator of Cloud City, having an iconic character is almost unavoidable when having a fixed setting such as Cloud City. However, other characters, such as Vader, Solo, Skywalker, Leia, Ashoka, etc. is much more difficult when these characters are functionally of "no fixed address."

I liked how Lando was presented in Jewel of Yavin, complete with caveat that is it only in how the characters encounter him in his capacity as Baron Administrator. Even then, for a PC to get to Lando's same relative skill level as presented requires a minimum of 500xp.

On the other hand, even if I had Vader himself show up in one of my adventures (unlikely), I would keep his stats abstract, and handle the encounter narratively. He would be such a dominating presence that even an attempt to engage him would require some serious fear checks.

I think what is more likely in my case is that players might catch a glimpse of some of these iconic characters at a distance, and they'd serve no more than a cameo appearance.

A bit of semi-off topic to relax.

Since I discovered the difference between canon and non-canon and the legends definition, I enjoyed a lot when my player destroyed a really evil bad nasty guy like Cronal (Black Hole) XD

Until the moment I used personalized villians and I don't want to kil main chars, but I would love a "legend-ary massacre"!

Fear me evil ones!! Mwa ha haha ha!! (evil laughing) XD

I'm not saying because they run a game different they are wrong you guys are saying it's wrong for me to want to see stated characters

It's not wrong for you to want to see characters statted out, but at the same time insisting that someone else's game must include iconic characters from the films is also misguided.

Am I interested in how Vader might look, especially now with the F&D beta out? Sure. But as they saying goes "if it has stats, we can kill it."

In some cases, such as having Lando Calrissian's presence as the Baron Administrator of Cloud City, having an iconic character is almost unavoidable when having a fixed setting such as Cloud City. However, other characters, such as Vader, Solo, Skywalker, Leia, Ashoka, etc. is much more difficult when these characters are functionally of "no fixed address."

I liked how Lando was presented in Jewel of Yavin, complete with caveat that is it only in how the characters encounter him in his capacity as Baron Administrator. Even then, for a PC to get to Lando's same relative skill level as presented requires a minimum of 500xp.

On the other hand, even if I had Vader himself show up in one of my adventures (unlikely), I would keep his stats abstract, and handle the encounter narratively. He would be such a dominating presence that even an attempt to engage him would require some serious fear checks.

I think what is more likely in my case is that players might catch a glimpse of some of these iconic characters at a distance, and they'd serve no more than a cameo appearance.

Then the expression would be: "Would be great that..." XD

So there really is no point to statting these characters, it's a waste of the developer's time and book space.

That's a conclusion based entirely on the a priori assumption that beating named characters should not be allowed.

Not allowed? Hardly, people can do whatever they want. But I think it's entirely up to the GM to provide the power level. I'd expect named characters to be at the top of their game...fastest ship in the galaxy, best pilot, only remaining Jedi, hunter of Jedi, etc...if they weren't at the top of their game then the original story wouldn't be about them. So I'd expect if I had to--for some mystical reason--include named characters in my game, they'd probably be more than my player's characters could handle, whether the PCs had 150XP or whether they had 2000XP. If other people want to make named characters that can be beaten by 500XP PCs they're welcome to it, but if FFG did it it kind of sets a power cap, and I don't see why FFG would want to do that.

Sounds little bit like a GM with a power trip and I notice there are alot of GM here so there gonna be based opinions they dont want established stats for that reason control if the game is about said "PC" shouldn't the PC at some point after many many sessions become equal or eventually surpass the established iconic characters it's not like they are Gods they are the measuring stick of this particular rpg

I just said that they will more than likely come across the characters in some form

Why?

If you're choosing to run a game in the Old Republic era, it's not very likely you'll run into Luke or Chewbacca...

And on another note... The FFG SW games do not have PCs and NPCs built the same. There are no 'levels' and things like 'Adversary' exist as shorthand for various PC skills when used by NPCs. NPCs are statted with whatever they need for that moment. If some PCs meet, say, Admiral Akbar, he can tell them what the GM thinks he'd say and you don't need his Brawn stat because you're not going to be arm-wrestling him.

They made this quite clear with Lando's stats, so whether anyone wants laundry lists of canon characters or not, it's simply not going to happen.

It might be more productive if you started a thread called 'let's stat Character XYZ' and then put up with all the debate that's likely to cause. But personally I think trying to get the abilities of certain fictional characters exactly right is a doomed effort anyway.

it's not like they are Gods they are the measuring stick of this particular rpg

Actually, I don't think they are either.

The PCs aren't in 'competition' with them really, unless the GM wants them to be.

I would personally consider (judging by Lando's stats) the movie characters to be the equivalent of PCs who completed three specialisations. So if I wanted, say, Han Solo, I'd look at the abilities from the higher tiers of Pilot, Scoundrel and Thief, and good scores (3-5) in these career skills. And three levels of Dedication for stats.

That seems to make them what we see in the movies - pretty competent in their core areas, but hardly infallible Asgardian gods.

So there really is no point to statting these characters, it's a waste of the developer's time and book space.

That's a conclusion based entirely on the a priori assumption that beating named characters should not be allowed.

Not allowed? Hardly, people can do whatever they want. But I think it's entirely up to the GM to provide the power level. I'd expect named characters to be at the top of their game...fastest ship in the galaxy, best pilot, only remaining Jedi, hunter of Jedi, etc...if they weren't at the top of their game then the original story wouldn't be about them. So I'd expect if I had to--for some mystical reason--include named characters in my game, they'd probably be more than my player's characters could handle, whether the PCs had 150XP or whether they had 2000XP. If other people want to make named characters that can be beaten by 500XP PCs they're welcome to it, but if FFG did it it kind of sets a power cap, and I don't see why FFG would want to do that.

Sounds little bit like a GM with a power trip and I notice there are alot of GM here so there gonna be based opinions they dont want established stats for that reason control if the game is about said "PC" shouldn't the PC at some point after many many sessions become equal or eventually surpass the established iconic characters it's not like they are Gods they are the measuring stick of this particular rpg

Nah, those guys are all playing in George Lucus's Campaign, which he wrapped up 30 years ago. They blew up some death star or a small moon or something. Then he re-rolled his players and they had to go back in time and find some clones or droids or some thing. Now, while I understand a lot of people want to play with George he doesn't game any more.

George doesn't have the character sheets from his campaign anymore. But of you like his NPC's there is nothing stopping you getting a bit of paper and making your best guess as to what they should look like. Being a GM is a creative job/role and most decent ones can do this and this game doesn't need many hard and fast numbers. Most GMs don't stat up their store keepers or the NPC's you meet in day to day life.

This isn't me on a power trip, this is me at my pragmatic best.

I hate it when mummy and daddy fight. :-( When will the lambs stop screaming?

In other news: I like having stated iconics, and if they show up then I will likely dry-hump the book in delight; however, if they don't, then there's a benefit to that, too: it means that I get to stat up my own Vader, tailored as required to suit my campaign.

Sounds little bit like a GM with a power trip and I notice there are alot of GM here so there gonna be based opinions they dont want established stats for that reason control if the game is about said "PC" shouldn't the PC at some point after many many sessions become equal or eventually surpass the established iconic characters it's not like they are Gods they are the measuring stick of this particular rpg

Is English a second language for you? Your sentences tend to run and can take some parsing due to the lack of grammar.

It's kinda laughable that you HAVE to include the iconic movie characters... as others have pointed out.

You don't have to. But many people will want to and in many cases it will be natural to do so. Go to Cloud City? You meet Lando. Infiltrate the Death Star? Maybe you meet Vader. The characters are part of the setting and many people like the setting and want to include them. As has been pointed out earlier, it's easy to not use something that is there, but it's a lot more work to make up something that isn't. That much is obviously true. So then the same counter-arguments get trotted out that it's a waste of space because they're not "necessary". But I can't help feeling that's not the reason. I don't see the same vehemence against less popular specializations or a particular species or a paragraph or the Barabel Enforcer just because a GM doesn't use it. Despite that a stat block for Asoka would be a very small thing, a paragraph.

Generally people recognize that the books aren't tailored specifically for them and that their campaign might never ever go to Coruscent but that other GM's campaigns might, that they might never use the Rebellion as part of their campaign, but they don't insist so vehemently that the multiple pages on it should be excised from the book. So I don't believe that the whole argument of their not being "necessary" is the real reason. That appears to be brought out as a defence when people point out you don't have to use something just because it's printed.

As to the real reasons, that's speculation. In your case it appears to be a distaste for being tied to the movies. Every time you join a thread you pretty much begin by telling people how your campaign goes off the track of the movies. (No offence intended, but it's quite funny - look at your posts here and notice how they're continually telling people how your campaign is not like the movies). But this presupposes that people are being tied to the movies. They're not. If they follow the movies or established characters in their games, it's because they like to. It's not a limitation if it's voluntary. In whafrog's case it seems to be a strong a priori belief that PCs should not be able to rival or exceed the iconics. Indeed he's just posted a rationalization of why that should be so.

I think it has to be acknowledged that it's easier to not use Vader stats if you don't want, than to do all that creation yourself if you do, that's a fact. I think it further has to be acknowledged that trying to argue against that by saying it's unnecessary / wastes space is a justification that has been found for keeping them out of the books, not the real reason. No book is tailored for a specific GM and there are far more things that take up more space which a GM may not use and these don't attract the same vehemence. Some people just hate the idea of those stats being present. Their dislike shouldn't override other people's likes / needs because as pointed out, it's easier to ignore than to create.

So there really is no point to statting these characters, it's a waste of the developer's time and book space.

That's a conclusion based entirely on the a priori assumption that beating named characters should not be allowed.

Not allowed? Hardly, people can do whatever they want. But I think it's entirely up to the GM to provide the power level.

Your argument was based on an assumption that PCs shouldn't be able to beat named characters. And indeed, your following post is actually a rationalization of why that should be so. Regarding it being up to the GM to provide the power level, that's a rather odd argument. The book is filled with "power levels" for creatures and NPCs of various types and ranks. These guide the GM's expectations and intuition of where different types of people sit on the power-ladder. It's done all the time. What you wish to do is make a special case for the named characters. However, your argument here is not why there should be a special case, you're making arguments that would actually remove all the monsters and NPCs in the game!

There are three problems with your approach of leaving the GM without guidance on how iconics should be statted Firstly, it leaves GM's without guidance. That one is rather obvious but personally I would find statting up Vader rather tricky and would like some help with it. Secondly, it's an argument that because FFG cannot tailor something perfectly to an individual game it should not be done at all. The flaw in that should not need explaining.

Thirdly, it assumes that a GM should be setting who these characters are based on what the PCs are. I recognize that some people build everything in relation to the players but to me and many with my sandbox approach, it would feel rather unfair to remove their agency and say "Vader will always be better than you" which is at the core of your argument.

If you are concerned with relative power levels then surely you must recognize it is much easier to tweak from a published base than to create whole-cloth. Indeed, a GM is likely to do a better job of delivering what they want by adjusting a published Vader than starting from scratch.

I'd expect named characters to be at the top of their game...fastest ship in the galaxy, best pilot, only remaining Jedi, hunter of Jedi, etc...if they weren't at the top of their game then the original story wouldn't be about them.

That's a rather D&D mindset. What I mean is that it's an odd notion to believe that plot revolves around the "highest level" characters. Was Han the best shot, the best fighter, the best pilot, the best anything really? Almost certainly he's not the "top of his game" smuggler. He's a chancer who won a ship in a card game and got way in over his head. Is Chewie the best mechanic in the Galaxy? I'm finding it unlikely. C3-P0 the most competent and elite of droids? Now you're just being silly. As I wrote, it's a perculiarly D&D conceit that the story is about them based on their power levels. And I'm willing to bet that the Millenium Falcon isn't actually the fastest ship in the Galaxy. (Maybe on the rare occasions it works. ).

Besides, there's another level of assumption in your argument before all this - the movies were about these characters. A role-playing game may not be. By your logic (which I don't accept for reasons in the earlier paragraph but lets explore it), your role-playing game must either have the PCs as top of their game or not be about them. Both propositions are absurd, but acceptance of them being absurd means accepting your statement about the OT is flawed.

So I'd expect if I had to--for some mystical reason--include named characters in my game, they'd probably be more than my player's characters could handle, whether the PCs had 150XP or whether they had 2000XP. If other people want to make named characters that can be beaten by 500XP PCs they're welcome to it, but if FFG did it it kind of sets a power cap, and I don't see why FFG would want to do that.

You begin the above by reluctantly acknowledging that some people might want to allow PCs to rival or beat named characters, and then revert to a conclusion at the end based on the a priori belief that this should not be allowed. It's only a "power cap" if this should not happen. And even if a GM wants that, then it's a lot easier to beef up what's there than create from whole cloth.

I'm really getting the sense from your posts that the iconics for you are sacred cows and that the only motivation you can see for allowing players to rival or exceed them is some sort of tawdry power-trip that you look down on. It's fine if in your game they are untouchable (though as a player it might annoy me), but basing arguments on that for others who do not share the same assumption doesn't work. Also, that is not the only possible motivation for including them and it's not necessarily a bad thing when it is. A player who beat Vader might be very happy about that.

Sounds little bit like a GM with a power trip and I notice there are alot of GM here so there gonna be based opinions they dont want established stats for that reason control if the game is about said "PC" shouldn't the PC at some point after many many sessions become equal or eventually surpass the established iconic characters it's not like they are Gods they are the measuring stick of this particular rpg

If that is what your game is about, fantastic. Many people, though, could care less about iconics. They are more interested in creating their own characters.

Is English a second language for you? Your sentences tend to run and can take some parsing due to the lack of grammar.

If we're going to start assessing people's posts based on their grammar or semantics, I'll just leave this here.