Two things.

1: Player has a choice. Thematically, they are not Jedi, and they shouldnt be dependent on the force. Powers should be far less than that of a Jedi or Sith. Allowing free reins on use of dark side points though, makes them very power oriented. Some are saying that I am wasting their XP, but that is not true. Their powers work fine, and they can do far more than the average person can hope to do, but they may need to take their time if they dont want the effects of dark side. Most of a tree isnt Powers, and the Power tree is very inexpensive for what it does. You are trying to make it sound like they are getting screwed. They arent, they may not be lifting Y fighters out of a swamp bed, but there is plenty they can do, especially when they get the not so uncommon two light force points.

2, Dark side is suppose to be dark. The person who says this goes against star wars theme, doesnt know star wars theme.

My mechanic had these force adept/exiles using force powers at about the amount they should be using them. Not throwing things in a firefight of course, like some yoda challenger... But getting the security rod from the distracted trooper, sliding a discarded blaster rifle towards a team mate who is out and holed down, lifting a team mate up an elevator shaft... All things that you can take your time to do, spending a turn or two if necessary to get the right roll on the dice. It "feels" right in every thematic way possible, both the darkness and mis perceptions, and the level of power such an exile/adept would have.

I realize that anything new, especially when it flies in the face of what you are use to, will be met with aggression and debate. As such, I wont go defending this sensible way of handling the dark side mechanics. The purpose is already served, ideas for people who, like me, dont think dark side should be so useful without the well known thematic costs. The only people screwed by this sort of gaming, are ones who expect their Force powers to be powerful and that dark side shouldnt be an issue. That is why it is important that players know in advance, which mine did, that dark side will have strong thematic effects just like in the novels and movies.

Dante, I think this is a series: 'The Ten Worst FFG House Rules' or something...

I am beginning to wonder if it is someone just messing with us...

But wouldn't you agree that it's the way the dark side is sold to us in the novels and movies?

Not really. The "misinterpreting the little girl" is a neat idea I think, at least in concept; but the results are far too severe...Palpatine-dark, IMHO.

Didn't it bother you at all, when you started playing this version of the game, that it actually paid (both short term and long run) to rely on the dark side?

Not really #2. First, I don't agree it paid. Per the normal rules it costs a DP and Strain. If using that Strain is a no-brainer for the PCs then IMHO there's not enough "strain interest" in the session. Strain should be a more valuable resource, and perhaps you're inventing your own methods because you're not using the Strain mechanic to its potential. And in the long run it's definitely not a great idea, because your threshold is lowered.

But second, I don't really think it's necessary for the game to make too much of how people play. They have enough mechanics in there to give the GM and players something to work with to handle various interpretations of moral conduct, but not so much that each group can't decide for themselves how to handle it.

Dante, I think this is a series: 'The Ten Worst FFG House Rules' or something...

I am beginning to wonder if it is someone just messing with us...

I said on the other thread that it felt a bit like a wind-up to me.

I might be wrong though; he may be sincere. I just disagree with what he's saying.

It is getting weirder and weirder... You first change the way force can be bought making the force way more powerful and obtainable in your games and then you put on this schpiel about that people should not be dependend on it. Why change the basics then???

And yeah the Dark Side should be dark. Dark. Not sick, morbid or gross and disgusting. If I was in a game of Star Wars and then all of a sudden unwittingly was made the person that forever damaged and scarred a four year old "because dark side goggles" I'd grap my stuff and leave. I would leave the Hellraiser RPG to those interested.

In general, I think it's a really, really bad idea in any game, to take agency away from the players.

That's why I personally dislike 'alignment' arguments, so much of it is dependent on opinion.

Punishing them for something they didn't choose to do seems a quick way to lose players, in fact.

And I run a game that's quite a bit more 'grindhouse' than the movies.

I'm surprised the group isn't like...holy crap lets ditch this crazy guy!!

The PC or the GM?

I am beginning to wonder what weirdness tomorrow will bring!

The weirdness doesn't in itself trouble me... My own game is plenty weird, and I actually enjoy seeing different people's divergent takes on the standard game.

But the overpowered rules... and the forcing of player agency... that bothers me, yes. Maybe it shouldn't.

Deep breath everyone XD

Too dark games goes against the "SW spirit itlsef". I know that are cruel scenes like Anakin killing Jedi childs or Anakin killing tusken chil... WTF Anakin?! STOP doing that! XD But in general sense, even those scenes went "off-screen".

Clone Wars had a pair of crude episodes, but again, really contained. In the GM chapter their suggests us to use a "not so dark" ambientation talking about scary scenes and similar.

In SW, until the appearance of Ashoka, the world was Black & White. Evil was evil and good guys can blow up what they wish because are the good guys and its just fine XD

In my games I try to respect that SW feeling. I add some "shady aspects" sometimes, but in general sensation not. Just enigmas, mysteries, starships, droids and blaster & lightsaber duels.

Dark Side, or Dark Side temptation in my games uses to be a drama. Of course, Marcy's versions (or anyone else version too) if its accepted by all the players are absolutelly valid.

My main player's character suffered constant expositions of despair during so many sessions and begin to fall to Dark Side because he believed that it fitted with that scene on that moment. Even did voluntary some "dark actions" to recreate that cinematic moment. The redemption and restoration of his faith was awesome

OMG, I'm an egolatric off-topic monster XDD

Morality & Conflict rules: Conflict is given not just for use DS pips, also for actions. Take a look to the Beta, maybe it helps you

Maelora,
I think a large part of the issue is that the OP pretty much refuses to move past the EotE Beta rulebook, and is trying to patch the game into being "the full experience" without purchasing any of the other materials such as the AoR or FaD rulebooks. Most of the folks on these forums on the other hand have picked up the additional rulebooks, so we're working from the "complete" picture in contrast to Gryph only having a very narrow view of the system.

That and based upon his tone in the other thread he started about proposed house rules, he doesn't seem particularly open to comments that his suggested house rules could cause problems for him or his group.

I'm probably gonna regret this, but... Gryphynx, let me engage.

What we do at our own tables is our own business; we all agree on that. If we post on a public forum, then some people are going to disagree; the more we diverge from standard, the more people will do so.

But either way, FFG won't kick our doors down and confiscate our dice if we are 'doing it wrong' with regard to character generation, setting, rules or lore. That's the beauty of RPGs.

But what is essential, for me at least, is whether everyone is enjoying it at the table. I had long, involved talks before I started GMing this, and made sure I had the player's support and/or trust before I went in at the deep end.

I might be misreading it, but what you're describing here seems to be a no-win situation. You don't seem to be karmically punishing him for bad choices; you seem to be making those choices for him. It's Catch 22, it's No Win.

With this edition, FFG bucked the usual SW game trend and presented Dark Side as a playable option with minimal drawbacks. I understand that you might disagree with this, and want to play in the spirit of past games where DS=instant NPC. It's how you are enforcing that which seems odd to me.

If I'm reading it wrong, I apologise.

And if the players are fine with a lack of agency, then I guess it's nobody else's business.

But it really wouldn't be for me, or a lot of people.

Agreed Donovan. That is precisely what rubbed me the wrong way before and is again now. It is not that I mind disagreeing eith someone but I do mind that someone who is not in any position to talk about the full experience is telling me I am wrong, am doing it wrong or says things like "as per the rules". It just gets weirder and weirder when you try to hear him out and ask valid questions about his methods on top of that.

Maelora,

I think a large part of the issue is that the OP pretty much refuses to move past the EotE Beta rulebook, and is trying to patch the game into being "the full experience" without purchasing any of the other materials such as the AoR or FaD rulebooks. Most of the folks on these forums on the other hand have picked up the additional rulebooks, so we're working from the "complete" picture in contrast to Gryph only having a very narrow view of the system.

That and based upon his tone in the other thread he started about proposed house rules, he doesn't seem particularly open to comments that his suggested house rules could cause problems for him or his group.

Agreed, Donovan.

I'm not quite sure what he's angling for. In the last thread, he suggested a choice of two house rules, saying he was going to use them anyway. Pretty much everyone said they were both a bad idea, especially as he was working with an old rule-set. We gave examples, and ended up saying: 'well, it's your game anyway, do what you like, but you DID come here asking for opinions'.

I would suggest as you do, that he gave the Core Books a chance before making such significant changes.

That was Maelora on full power level XD That why I admire her posts so much

I think most of us here are reasonable, Josep.

I actually don't want to come across as snarky (I know I am sometimes!), or unwelcoming.

I think this is a really good - if robustly argued - forum. It's nowhere near as toxic as many I've been on.

So admittedly I read the first post and only lightly skimmed the rest, but I love the narrative you created, and if your players agreed with it, then have fun!

I agree the Dark Side, as portrayed in very black-and-white terms (at least by the Jedi), is very dark and is essentially evil. What you did narratively could fit that.

The important part is that your players bought into it, and didn't see it as crushing their fun. At that point, if you're all on-board, run with it however you will.

Actually he did seem to modify results in a different thread. It's just that he was/is always argumentative and I don't recall him ever saying "thanks for the input, I've changed a few things because of it".

I might be misreading it, but what you're describing here seems to be a no-win situation. You don't seem to be karmically punishing him for bad choices; you seem to be making those choices for him. It's Catch 22, it's No Win.

Agreed. I kind of like the concept of the dark side warping perceptions, but I'd make sure the player knew that was a probable situation whenever they used dark pips, and I'd make sure to give them tools to mitigate it...Discipline checks, Perception checks, etc. Ultimately if the player knows their PC is in the throes of the dark side, they will have the option not to act...in which case I wouldn't pull a "Surprise! It's actually an Ewok sharpshooter...bang! You should have acted!"

I've actually got no problem with the Dark Side 'clouding' someone's judgment, but personally I would allow for skill checks to manage it.

I've been considering doing this in my Force & Destiny game as well.

Ask the PC for a Discipline check. If they fail the check, they might perceive something that's not quite true, and be given the chance to respond to it. If they succeed the check, they overcome the illusion and aren't fooled.

I definitely wouldn't just have the PC break the spine of a little girl out of GM fiat because I want the Dark Side to be "dark".

Agreed. I kind of like the concept of the dark side warping perceptions, but I'd make sure the player knew that was a probable situation whenever they used dark pips, and I'd make sure to give them tools to mitigate it...Discipline checks, Perception checks, etc. Ultimately if the player knows their PC is in the throes of the dark side, they will have the option not to act...in which case I wouldn't pull a "Surprise! It's actually an Ewok sharpshooter...bang! You should have acted!"

That kind of perception warping sounds like a great use of Threat or Despair on certain rolls.

The OP method also reeks of the GM vs. PC mentality. At least he accepted that flipping dark pips only costs 1 Destiny Point for a single rolls worth, because WOW would that be harsh.

The weirdness doesn't in itself trouble me... My own game is plenty weird, and I actually enjoy seeing different people's divergent takes on the standard game.

But the overpowered rules... and the forcing of player agency... that bothers me, yes. Maybe it shouldn't.

I think what bothers me - well, bothers me as much as a complete stranger I will never meet running a game I will never play in can bother me - is the stead-fasted desire to monkey about with the rules, rules that (as we now see here) have far reaching effects - without even bothering to crack open the Gold Edition rules once.

No gamer ever runs a game as written EVER. Every system under the sun - D6, D20, Hero, Toon, Paranoia, GURPS, FFG - is house ruled to one degree or another. Hell, it just might be sheer laziness - "I can't be bothered to look up the hit location chart, so it gets dropped!" - but it comes from a informed view. I don't necessarily agree with your house rules (no careers outside of your starting career? MADNESS!), but you know enough about the game to know what these repercussions will have.

But using a broken set of rules as a starting point to patch your own rules upon? . . and then call us wrong and say we don't know what we're talking about? Now if it were just me, I talk out of my ass all the time. Yes, I'm an idiot. But to universally dismiss everyone, folks who have been around here much, much longer than I? MADNESS!

And then add in heavy handed GM tricks like this "HAH-HAH! SURPRISE! You just murdered a girl! You're EEEE-VILLL!" - I don't know what the hell you're playing, but it aint Star Wars.

(For the record, I think a Hellraiser RPG could be an awesome one or two shot game)

And then add in heavy handed GM tricks like this "HAH-HAH! SURPRISE! You just murdered a girl! You're EEEE-VILLL!" - I don't know what the hell you're playing, but it aint Star Wars.

I think it’s called “This Sith Your Life”.

Or maybe “Forever War Sith”?

Or, let’s be honest here, maybe it’s just “I’m the GM and my sole purpose here is to sadistically F#(K with your characters as much as I possibly can because that’s the only way I can get my jollies”?

If you think about it Desslok, his view is at least consistent across the board. He is right, he knows what's best, and anything in conflict with that is wrong.

His version of the rules is right, even though he's still mentally in the beta of a finished system we've had for years.

His narrative is right, and the player is just lucky to be there.

His hardline view of light/dark is right, and if you flip a pip to activate a force power so you can save a kitten, that's the same as burning down an orphanage for the lulz.

I don't necessarily agree with your house rules (no careers outside of your starting career? MADNESS!)

"MADNESS??? THIS IS SPART-

... um, I'm not in Sparta, I'm in Cardiff... soooo....

MADNESS? THIS IS... um... CARDIFF!!!!!"

MADNESS? THIS IS... um... CARDIFF!!!!!"

Cardiff? Those Welsh can be pretty high up on the madness scale. There’s a good reason why the Englanders only went so far.

Weren’t they related to the people who ran around naked into combat and painted themselves with blue-colored psychoactive substances?