Actually Han and Chewie might have had basic training. In legends at least Han was a former Imperial officer and Chewie was shown as a member of Kashyyyk's defense force in episode III.

So my response to statements about real world military's requiring training is this is not the real world and the game is not intended to be a simulation. My second response would be that PC's are HEROS. Did Luke, Han, Chewie, or Lando go through basic training? Nope not a one of them did. Lando was an administrator and would most closely be associated with the smuggler and likely have the gambler and charmer trees under his belt.

Hero's don't have to follow the same rules because they are heroic.

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of the discussion, or at least my suggestions on why and how to do it. Nobodies arguing that GMs MUST do this but how they could do something like this in their game.

Not saying its a simulation, just using knowledge to suggest how an organisation may act.

On Luke Han etc theres more than enough time for them to undergo a week or so's training in the movie time periods at some point, even with legends there likely some point they had time to do something. But even given that theres plenty of narrative ways to explain why they are exempted from any requirement (without legends materials that suggest Han was once an imperial officer), Han, Chewie and Luke rescue a senior member of the rebellion and bring R2D2 with the DS plans, and in said rescue were assisted by a jedi known to the rebellion, Luke was further vouched for by old friends who are skilled in the first task we see him undertake as part of the rebellion, Lando fairly swiftly helps rescue Han who's valuable to the Rebellion. There I've provided two ways for them to have joined a game where the GM wants to run the rebellion with an entry requirement.

heres how I'd likely handle it;

Major Grumpy (NPC); Right Ladies and Gents, its two weeks before the mission, those of you who can demonstrate competence in core military skills should use this time to practice them, those who don't can spend the time in boot camp or if they can demonstrate a task they can better use the time to aid the mission I may be willing to defer bootcamp.

GM aside; the 1st option gains you a skill rank in a career skill you share with recruit or another skill you can justify as military say piloting or even gain the recruit spec if you want it. The second option just gains you recruit spec. The final option will gain you an obligation, and the rebellion my well come asking for proof you've gained the skills or ask you to do bootcamp later. You are also free to attempt to slice records, just plain lie your way through option 1, that way heavy obligation lies. There of course may be bonuses for good roll playing.

Just to drill things home, these are just suggestions on how such things could be handled, if the GM wants to, not suggestions that every game should bother.

Nope, I did not miss your point even the slightest. All of your suggestions indicate there is only one way to accomplish a given mission, military prowess. Maybe my character wants to slice the security so we can enter what ever place we are entering with a certain degree of stealth. Or perhaps I want to be the scout and search a head without being seen. Both valid and neither covered by recruit.

The only thing a player has any real control over is his character. Forcing him to take a spec is a bad idea and will likely create hard feelings. If it is a free option for everyone and it does not fit one of the characters then it is still a bad idea and will likely cause hard feelings as they are getting something for free and I am not.

If you have a player that is going against the party or intentionally going against the story you are trying to tell that is one thing. A GM telling a player he has to do something a certain way, well you might as well play a video game.

Go for the middle ground. Give them the XP to take the Spec, tell them they are not required to, but encouraged, to take the spec, let the players decide.

The Recruit is a nice spec with some useful tools, but it's not going to turn a "civie" speced character into a combat monster any more or less then a couple ranks of Ranged and a few combat talents from almost any tree in any book will.

This isn't D20. Your class doesn't define your character, or his abilities. Let the players do what players will do, and adjust the campaign as needed (which usually is just a difficulty code or two and not much else).

Nope, I did not miss your point even the slightest. All of your suggestions indicate there is only one way to accomplish a given mission, military prowess. Maybe my character wants to slice the security so we can enter what ever place we are entering with a certain degree of stealth. Or perhaps I want to be the scout and search a head without being seen. Both valid and neither covered by recruit.

The only thing a player has any real control over is his character. Forcing him to take a spec is a bad idea and will likely create hard feelings. If it is a free option for everyone and it does not fit one of the characters then it is still a bad idea and will likely cause hard feelings as they are getting something for free and I am not.

If you have a player that is going against the party or intentionally going against the story you are trying to tell that is one thing. A GM telling a player he has to do something a certain way, well you might as well play a video game.

I think part of the point is, at least in my game, no one was forced to do anything. It was brought up at the table before hand as the players (experienced Edge characters) were trying to make join the rebellion. ALL of the PC's had planned on taking recruit, ALL of them. I offered access to Recruit to all of them as an addition. They are happy with it, I am happy with it and, IMHO that's all that matters.

As for the suggestion of Recruit implying is pushing military prowess is the only way to accomplish a mission is a narrow view at best. My group has only one truly "martial" character. We have a Pilot, Scoundrel, Slicer and an Assassin. All of the Non'martial types had no real interest in heading into truly martial specs and thought that picking up some additional combat training without going to a full on combat spec was a good idea, heck, our slicer was one of the first ones on board. Things have gone south a few times over so a few extra class skills (basic combat training, advanced combat training, and vehicular training) were smart ideas.

Don't like the idea, don't use it. If not all of my players wanted the Spec, I would have considered other options. They did, so I didn't. Everyone's games will be different, everyone's experiences are different. I could personally care less if Luke or Han or Leia had recruit. I'm not running for them. MY players did, and all thought it was fair. 'Nuf said.

I'm happy with it, my players are more than happy with it, and IMHO, in the end is all that matters.

I agree that if all your players want the spec then it is good. The original poster expressed concern regarding it being over bearing.

Offer it to everyone. Those that are open to growing with the story can take it, and those that want the purity of their vision can decline. It's the players choice. An extra bit of xp to further multi-spec and a free generic spec vs character purity and not getting the free spec.

I wouldn't buy the upset feelings over not getting something for free like the others did. It was the players choice. This isn't a d20 game where everyone has to be equal or people get upset.

I once ran a Stormtrooper 1-shot game (I literally ran a stormtrooper squad through the EoE adventure Under a Black Sun, with a few minor revisions), telling my players, "Human only without a good reason, free recruit tree, Starting XP and 20 Duty to spend. No Force Rating 2 characters"

everyone had fun making characters they wouldnt normally play, and dug way deeper into their talent trees than we normally do. (instead of buying stats for a sustained campain)

The stormtrooper squad was dirty as all heck- but instead of looking over our shoulders for the cops, we focused on having plausable justifications for our superiors as we broke into buildings, hacked computers, and dangled technitions over ledges.

Nope, I did not miss your point even the slightest. All of your suggestions indicate there is only one way to accomplish a given mission, military prowess. Maybe my character wants to slice the security so we can enter what ever place we are entering with a certain degree of stealth. Or perhaps I want to be the scout and search a head without being seen. Both valid and neither covered by recruit.

The only thing a player has any real control over is his character. Forcing him to take a spec is a bad idea and will likely create hard feelings. If it is a free option for everyone and it does not fit one of the characters then it is still a bad idea and will likely cause hard feelings as they are getting something for free and I am not.

If you have a player that is going against the party or intentionally going against the story you are trying to tell that is one thing. A GM telling a player he has to do something a certain way, well you might as well play a video game.

You just proved that you did.

NOWHERE did I say that I would force them to take the spec, in fact I gave options on how this could be avoided. NOWHERE did I say that I expected them to solve ANY problems with military prowess alone (using the flawed perspective that military prowess is combat skills only, in fact your 2 non-military skills examples are both things I'd expect a star wars military team to be able to perform, scouting without being seen is about as standard a military skill as they GET, any team that routinely ignores scouting will be regretting it to some degree). They are free to try whatever they like to avoid the requirements the NPC wants them to meet, and to complete the mission given to them.

ALL I'd be asking of my players is that they role play their way out, all XP, and other awards have an RP reason to gain them, what mission the players have has an RP reason. The options I handed my players were guiding suggestions to show they could avoid it if they wanted, the NPC is asking them to prove some skills as the rebellion's policy is that due to the nature of a rebellion even the best teams can hit unexpected issues and so asking for a very basic set of combat competencies is a good way not to waste lives. Hell a player who really doesn't want to take the spec, does some good RP, but fluffs his roll badly enough I'd likely offer the choice of take it and it doesn't count against your spec, or kick your heels in the brig for those two weeks (and a skill you could practice you may get a rank in anyway), since its all a narrated two weeks anyway....

I've been thinking about the same thing for my upcoming campaign. But I'll wait till I know what my players will choose as careers, if most of them are combat specific it may become unnecessary.

I have run games where I gave out XP that the players can spend, and then I give out extra XP that I spent on their behalf.

This way you have . . .

(a) combat characters spending points on non-combat skills, and

(b) non-combat characters spending points on combat skills . . .

. . . to better fit the actual experience the characters lived though.

The characters all grow organically, while on track towards a “build” that some players have in mind.

As an added bonus you end up with characters that can participate in a wider set of circumstances, and players have a taste of skills that they normally avoid.

It also fits with the notion that some things come easy, while others you need to work on. I know I am good at some skills that I would rather swap out for more marketable skills.

Note: Make it so that it does not count against the PC's number of specializations. Don't mess with a players' ability to spend XP.