So, in the campaign I'm currently running one of my players had decided that he has a personal vendetta against the emperor himself. With the group's current power level and their past track record of kicking out logic and doing the impossible, I'd be surprised if Palpatine survives two more play sessions. Now, I have a number of ideas as to what will happen to the story when he dies, so I'm not here to ask for advice, I simply want to know how far my fellow GMs and players would be willing to go when it comes to breaking the Star Wars canon. Could you kill the emperor before the events of Empire Strikes Back?

Why not? It's your story.

Canon? Man, my games are all over the map in regards to Canon. A simple change like saving Luke before nightfall on Hoth resulted in the near fall of the New Republic and the (almost) victory of Thrawn. Or the time where our team of Jedi saved Anakin from going to confront the Emperor and Mace.

Who cares - let the chips fall where they may! It's your game, your rules!

Sure, they kill the Emporer or was that his body double?

Well couple of important points you should always remember.

1. YOUR GAME WILL NEVER BE CANON.
2. The minute your player's characters step into the game canon ends.

So as to what happens that is up to you and your players and you really should not plot protect anyone. But you should also not allow the players to use info their characters do not have.

But you should also stat palpatine, the imperial guards, his dark side acolytes, etc appropriately for who they are. Palpatine is pretty muh never alone and those around him are very strong.

It doesn't seem a popular point of view here, but I like the idea that the stuff my characters are getting up to are in the same universe as the films. I prefer it when we don't go against canon.

(Though in one fun game that definitely wasn't according to canon we crippled Darth Vader on Endor with a lucky crit with a thermal detonator, right before he was meant to meet Luke.)

It doesn't seem a popular point of view here, but I like the idea that the stuff my characters are getting up to are in the same universe as the films. I prefer it when we don't go against canon.

(Though in one fun game that definitely wasn't according to canon we crippled Darth Vader on Endor with a lucky crit with a thermal detonator, right before he was meant to meet Luke.)

And it can be the same universe. But if you are protecting elements from the players you are kind of being a crappy GM. Your players should be able to run over canon. If it makes sense. If you build a solid version of Darth Vaders and the players meet and kill them. You should let Vader die. And whatever happened in the movies is now changed.

The thing to remember in the movie universe of the game your players are the most important characters. Not the heroes in the movies. Act accordingly.

The opening scene of my campaign is a close-up shot of Palpatine screaming while getting his facial features torn off with a pair of rusty pliers.

It draws back to the Jedi and Sith discussing plans for their genocidal war on the rim of the galaxy, and how the expect Emperor Tarkin to betray them. The Sith leader tells the others to ease up on the torture or Tarkin won't believe the head they are about to deliver to him actually belongs to Palpatine.

I deliberately rewrote pretty much all aspects of canon, to suit the fact that the PCs were meant to be the heroes. Luke and Han are still around, and they're still awesome, but they are older and in mentor roles, having already had their adventures and their stories told. Most of the bad guys are dead because the PCs don't need a Vader figure; they will have their own enemies.

The players admit (grudgingly in some cases) they perefr this version of the Empire because it's stronger thematically - no evil wizards, it plays to its strengths of having vast numbers of ships and disposable troopers, and better tech. And with Palpatine dead, it allows for various factions within the Empire, a more nuanced treatment of them as antagonists.

Oddly enough, despite changing the entire background, much worked out in a way that is recognisable to canon. The 'Systems Alliance' are still the good guys. There's still a sizeable 'scum and villainy' faction.

Even our F&D game is recognisable to a post RotJ game - the PCs are a small, resurgent Force tradition with the Luke Skywalker character as their mentor. Only the antagonists and Inquisitors of their game are the returned Jedi rather the Empire.

So go for it. It's your game. And FFG explicitly say that you can do what you like with canon, providing you inform the players (and ideally get them on board). Unlike the WEG game, the FFG version has very little canon in it. Most of the published material and adventures can easily be modified for any SW era.

It depends on what the player wants, really. I could have fun playing a character who was desperate for revenge against the Emperor, but (as a player I'd know I was) doomed never to succeed.

Maybe I'm killed.

Maybe I find out someone else was responsible.

Maybe I find someone who needs my help more than I need revenge.

Maybe my need for revenge mires me in the Dark Side and I become a tool of my greatest enemy.

Victory can be rewarding, but failure can tell stories that are just as impressive.

Go to minute marker 4:30 or click http://youtu.be/wHYWsvoBCFY?t=4m30s

And it can be the same universe. But if you are protecting elements from the players you are kind of being a crappy GM. Your players should be able to run over canon. If it makes sense. If you build a solid version of Darth Vaders and the players meet and kill them. You should let Vader die. And whatever happened in the movies is now changed.

The thing to remember in the movie universe of the game your players are the most important characters. Not the heroes in the movies. Act accordingly.

Do what you want for your own games, of course, but don't call out GMs for being "crappy" if they want to make their Star Wars universe the Star Wars universe. The Star Wars universe is defined by more than its tech, and for some of us, saying "oh, Luke is no longer important, you players are the super-best" takes away from Star Wars.

And, on a broader note - in any story, your characters don't have to be the center of the universe for it to be a good story. Some players want to be that in their stories - fine, that's okay. Other players (and GMs) find the notion of making characters "central" or "the most important" anathema to the idea of a big universe.

I think saying a GM who sticks to their guns on canon is crappy is going too far. A crappy GM will say, "No this is my game, you can't do that!" A good GM will come up with interesting and entertaining events that throw the players in a certain direction without it being blatantly against the players' goals. A great GM will do it without anyone being the wiser.

A GM should know what his/her players enjoy most and try to appease that, however players should also know what kind of campaign they're characters are in. It is a group effort after all. If the GM needs certain things to take place in order for his story which he spent hours upon hours planning, then by all means the players should be sensible about it. The GM should never "railroad" by making player decisions for them, but instead use the illusion of choice and Schrödinger's Gun.

I've had GMs blatantly shut down obvious successes in order to progress their story the way they see fit and that ruins the fun. I've also played in games where a member of the party suddenly wants to break from the quest to go krayt dragon hunting because, and I quote, "Eh, why not?" which is equally, if not more, frustrating.

TL;DR Simply put, canon or not, there needs to be a healthy balance in any campaign between what events may happen and what events must happen.

I agree with everyone saying the game belongs to you and your group; do whatever the hell you want. Don't forget the Emperor has clones in legends material so you can always fall back on that if you want.

That being said, I'm currently running a campaign that I intend to last for a year or two that will have fate/destiny as a major theme and thus stick to canon as closely as possible. They've started out in the middle of the Clone Wars and it's going up until Ep4. They'll probably be major players in the Rebel Alliance by then with fleets of capitals and such. I want them to be major badasses. But, I intend the final scene to be the party getting their asses handed to them by the Emperor and Vader. Sometimes, you can't change destiny.

Hmm. I also just realized sometime I want to write an adventure for a party of Bothans who die to bring us that information.

If you are protecting Darth Vader etc. to protect canon you are being a railroady crappy GM. There is nothing wrong with playing in the movie universe. But if you are plot protecting NPCs like Palpatine and Darth Vader...then yes you are being a crappy GM.

I doesn't make it crappy or awesome what a GM decided to do with "their" Star Wars Universe.

In my current group I told them it is THE star wars universe, that is EU friendly with exceptions. They accepted that and we go from there. I told them it is unlikely they will be involved in key events unless it is part of a One-Shot type story and not their normal campaign, and they are okay with that.

Will I do this for all games in this universe? no, does it fit what my Players want? yes.

If a GM does differently and wants to have the players fight Darth Vader are they a better GM than me? no.

If I want to protect the accepted "canon" characters am I a crappy GM? no.

The difference I see between a canon character protecting GM being good or bad, isn't their protection, it is when they introduce the protection.

If you discussed at the beginning of playing before the first die was rolled "this is how I feel about our Star Wars universe as it will occur in our playing" then you are a Good GM. If you didn't discuss that and only when the players want to kill Darth Vader to you introduce this "cannot kill canon characters" rule, you are a Bad GM and a cheater. Like making up your own rules mid way through a board game.

If you say "because you GM differently than I want, you are a bad GM" that means you are a bad Player. Expectations should be discussed between the Players and the GM and compromises made and then those should become "law" for your gameplay universe.

Be fair, and you are a good GM, be fair and have your players have fun and compliment the stories and have them look forward to sessions, you are a Great GM. Any other bar to measure that is someone being a jerk.

If you are protecting Darth Vader etc. to protect canon you are being a railroady crappy GM. There is nothing wrong with playing in the movie universe. But if you are plot protecting NPCs like Palpatine and Darth Vader...then yes you are being a crappy GM.

Sounds like somebody has some unfulfilled nerd fantasies they need to work out...

If you are protecting Darth Vader etc. to protect canon you are being a railroady crappy GM. There is nothing wrong with playing in the movie universe. But if you are plot protecting NPCs like Palpatine and Darth Vader...then yes you are being a crappy GM.

Seeing as in this system you can stat Emperor Palpatine with a Force Rating of 7 (not a stretch), a Wound/Strain Threshold of 50, several ranks in Resolve and Adversary, and any number of Force powers and unique special abilities, you can make him "unbeatable." And there are rules for foregone conclusions in the CRB and certain other published material.

Whether or not to preserve canon should be a discussion you have with your players early on. If their expectations are that they can "alter" the story, then make it possible of course, but make it believable. Sidious took down three Jedi Masters in one attack, and defeated Maul and Savage Opress like it was child's play.

Not really sure where I'm going with this...basically, there is a case for either side on this issue, so one shouldn't be making sweeping statements about crappy GMs.

Edit: stupid autocorrect...

I've been in campaigns that obsessed with sticking to canon, I've been in campaigns that tossed canon out he nearest airlock during the first session or before the campaign began and I've had lots of fun all of the above.

If you want to get rid of Palpatine go for it!. I would suggest a smaller scale version of what happened after Endor in the EU if Vader is still alive. Vader takes the throne but some Grand Moffs, Admirals and such declare themselves Palpatine's rightful heir. you might even throw in some cases where some of the splinter groups ally with the rebellion, either temporarily until Vader is dealt with or permanently and have the PCs sent to meet with or aid such groups.

Now, I have a number of ideas as to what will happen to the story when he dies, so I'm not here to ask for advice, I simply want to know how far my fellow GMs and players would be willing to go when it comes to breaking the Star Wars canon. Could you kill the emperor before the events of Empire Strikes Back?

Obviously there is no consensus Personally that's not the kind of game I would run...then again my players barely know anything about Star Wars anyway.

But if you like the idea, do it! I would make sure it's not easy, otherwise the players will probably feel cheated. This link has some really good ideas on how to handle "boss fights", and while the advice is targeted to D&D4, the principles are sound, IMHO:

http://angrydm.com/2010/04/the-dd-boss-fight-part-1/

I wouldn't let them tackle the Emperor, or at least do it and win. At least personally.

This is just a power level issue. He might as well be a god with this level of power discrepancy. It took Darth Vader redirecting his lightning back into him and tossing him down a shaft many miles long(and then an explosion powerful enough to annihilate a small moon) to actually destroy him.

The only way I'd let them kill him would be to do something like detonate a nuke in his toilet or something equally annihilating. If they engage him in combat, they'll just die/get tossed in a dungeon/shipped out to a testing facility/etc...

I make it simple. We're playing in an Alternate Universe campaign. Everything you know about the universe happened as it originally did, until the campaign started. Then things may or may not be as you, the player, thought they were. If my players kill (either on purpose or through some misguided heroic shenanigans) Han, Luke, Leia, or anybody else, then so be it. The story evolves as needed to continue the game.

For example, my own AU for my SW Saga Edition game is that Luke kills Palpatine and then installs himself as the new Emperor - which is helped in part due to Palpatine planning that as a possible outcome.Luke then takes over, makes Vader swear fealty, and demolishes the Rebels. Han and crew escape, but the rebellion is done. To continue that, Leia is being taught by Rahm Kota and there is help from a few force ghosts, and a couple holocrons. Luke, fortunatly, has it better, since Palpatine has a veritable hoard of knowledge stored away. The campaign opens at 15 years after RotJ. I'll probably update that after the new movies come out.

Now, you don't have to do that. You can protect canon as you see fit, ir demolish it as necissary. I just go with the flow. If my players are determined to kill Vader, fine. They are going to have to earn it, both finding him and all that, but actually fighting him as well. Just my thoughts on it.

And it can be the same universe. But if you are protecting elements from the players you are kind of being a crappy GM. Your players should be able to run over canon. If it makes sense. If you build a solid version of Darth Vaders and the players meet and kill them. You should let Vader die. And whatever happened in the movies is now changed.

The thing to remember in the movie universe of the game your players are the most important characters. Not the heroes in the movies. Act accordingly.

Do what you want for your own games, of course, but don't call out GMs for being "crappy" if they want to make their Star Wars universe the Star Wars universe. The Star Wars universe is defined by more than its tech, and for some of us, saying "oh, Luke is no longer important, you players are the super-best" takes away from Star Wars.

And, on a broader note - in any story, your characters don't have to be the center of the universe for it to be a good story. Some players want to be that in their stories - fine, that's okay. Other players (and GMs) find the notion of making characters "central" or "the most important" anathema to the idea of a big universe.

If we're simply talking powergaming, I can't see how it's possible that any NPC can withstand attacks from multiple high-end PCs without going down in short order. 50 or so wounds won't help keep them alive more than a few more rounds at best.

A villain needs minions and cannon fodder to help it survive. Or ideally, not putting himnself in harm's way. A Moff isn't a raging engine of destruction in a fight, but he makes certain he's never in the firing line for long.

My players will have their own antagonists, but I've never 'protected' them in any game I've ran. The players want the satisfaction of taking down their foes, though they might have to work hard for it.

And let's play nice; no need to criticise anyone else's play styles - FFG are happy with us playing how we like. Obviously there are strong views on both sides but RPGs allow us to play how we like. Let's exchange our different views, not fight over them.

I have to agree with Daeglan. If a GM doesn't want Vader, Palpatine, or <insert character's name here> killed than he or she shouldn't put that character in a position where the Player Characters have a chance to attack them. Once a character from the movies or EU enters a battle with the party they become a fair target. They might be very hard to kill but they should never be impossible to kill.

I definitely think the GM should have some plans for what the effects of the character's death are before the character takes the field but if the GM fails to do so it is their responsibility to roll with the punch their plans took rather then hand waving the player's accomplishment away..