Are there any force powers that can assist in gambling? I'm thinking about making an artisan that loves to gamble. I don't know the F&D powers that well, I just have EotE and I haven't looked at the force powers in a while so any help or ideas would be appreciated.

Move (fine manipulation) - alter dice rolls

Sense - are they bluffing?

Influence may work depending on the situation. "You have a losing hand, you should fold"

Misdirect might work as well depending on the game being played. "I didn't see you move that piece there!"

Seek of course "The ball is under this cup"

Of course in every single instance listed you're not only using the force for something selfish, you're cheating as well. Pretty comparable to Stealing/Theft so expect an automatic 2-3 conflict per instance. You can drop your Morality down FAST that way.

I'll have to read up on the conflict system. If what you say is true then it's sad to see that FFG went the draconian Black/White split on the force that I don't like. I can kill them but the force forbid I steal some credits from these black sun guys because that's the path of the dark side... Hopefully it has a little more common sense built into it. I'd hate to see the arguments from previous iterations of the game being re-hashed here.

Conflict would depend on context. I'd rule that Qui-Gon using the Force to tip the chance cube and win Anakin in Episode I wouldn't earn conflict, since it freed a slave and didn't win him any money (if it did, I would think the GM Lucas would immediately drain that for repairs to their ship). But if, say, Obi-Wan had sat down at a sabaac table in that cantina in Episode II and started earning himself a nest egg, that would be Conflict-worthy.

I'll have to read up on the conflict system. If what you say is true then it's sad to see that FFG went the draconian Black/White split on the force that I don't like. I can kill them but the force forbid I steal some credits from these black sun guys because that's the path of the dark side... Hopefully it has a little more common sense built into it. I'd hate to see the arguments from previous iterations of the game being re-hashed here.

Give it a look. It's not as punitive as prior systems, and it's a bit more difficult to "game". Plus if you do go dark side, you don't loose your character or anything. That would just be silly.

Good to hear Kaosoe. As long as I could sit down in a seedy cantina and and use the force to help me win some credits from unsavory folks or from the casino itself without being considered "dark" I'll be happy. It wouldn't be the focus of the character anyway, just a side quirk.

I'll have to read up on the conflict system. If what you say is true then it's sad to see that FFG went the draconian Black/White split on the force that I don't like. I can kill them but the force forbid I steal some credits from these black sun guys because that's the path of the dark side... Hopefully it has a little more common sense built into it. I'd hate to see the arguments from previous iterations of the game being re-hashed here.

It is pretty common sense, Forcees aren't expected to be goody goodies, and are expected to gain a certain amount of conflict regularly without much worry to their overall morality.

It's about context. Stealing from the Black Sun and giving to the poor, or using the credits to accomplish a greater goal within the narrative is fine. Stealing form the Black Sun because you want a new quadlaser and the Black sun a jerks anyway is probably pushing it.

Even if you are being a selfish jerk, it'll be a matter of instancing. Lets say you play five hands of Sabacc and cheat on one of em. That's only 2-3 conflict. As long as you generally keep your nose clean the rest of the session 2-3 conflict is unlikely to have a significant impact on your Morality score. In fact it's likely your morality will go up.

On the other hand let's say you cheat on two hands of Sabacc (+6 conflict) Lie about it twice (+2 conflict), and blow up the Black Sun goon's speed (with them in it) before you even know if they saw you (+1 Conflict), and two times flipped a couple dark pips to allow you to use the force when you didn't have enough white pips (+2 Conflict) You're now totally at 11 conflict for the session and you morality is going to to drop, it's just a matter how much.

Ah so conflict is different from morality. I'll read up on it when I can. Although from your description Ghostofman it may have some of the traditional features that I've always thought were silly. 1 hand of Sabacc = 2-3 conflict, blow up their speeder with them in it = 1 conflict.

But it does sound like I can gamble away using the force while helping the poor and downtrodden without having to worry about falling to the darkside.

If you rather have a character not take part in Morality, it's an option. You just need to take either Obligation or Duty (or both). Basically it makes your character's journey less about the directly moral implications of their actions, but also prevents you from reaping potential benefits from being particularly low/high in Morality; which is probably fine if you plan on sitting at a middle-point anyways. Per RAW, you also can't get to the point where you can use Dark Side points instead of Light Side, but you can make that a narrative decision if you and the GM are fine with that.

Ah so conflict is different from morality. I'll read up on it when I can. Although from your description Ghostofman it may have some of the traditional features that I've always thought were silly. 1 hand of Sabacc = 2-3 conflict, blow up their speeder with them in it = 1 conflict.

But it does sound like I can gamble away using the force while helping the poor and downtrodden without having to worry about falling to the darkside.

Yeah, Conflict is measured each session, and that's used to derive Morality adjustments. So you can misbehave this session and lose 2-3 points of Morality, and be a good little Jedi next session and gain 9 points of Morality. It takes dedication to get Lightside bonuses, it's pretty easy to stay relatively Net 0, and turning Dark isn't hard, but it does take time, or require the player to intentionally do something pretty heinous. It actually works very much in line with the Films, with Vader going slowly over the course of an entire campaign until he hits a threshold. It's not like the novels where someone can pop a particularly rancid fart in a speeder, enjoy the suffering of his friends a little too much, and suddenly thirst for the blood of orphans.

1 conflict is really nothing to worry about. The way it functions I guarantee you even the likes of Yoda and Obi-wan ended each session with at least 1 Conflict, sometimes potentially quite a bit more.

And the blowing up speeder thing was "before you knew if they even saw you or not." If they already saw you and were going for their blasters you're totally fine, blow em to smithereens.

Cool, doesn't sound near as restrictive as I was concerned it might be. I'm really intrigued by the detailed workings of the morality system. I'll read them as soon as I can.

When I mention silly, I refer to games where the wonton slaughter of the opponents by the murder-hobos hardly get's an eye blink, but use the force while pickpocketing someone and the game throws the book at you.

Back to the subject at hand, I think I'll just go with sense. I'm not looking for some gambling mini-games on the side. Just more of a: "Player: I spend a few hours gambling while we wait and I use the force to read my opponents and get the upper hand. *Rolls* I have three lightside points. GM: upgrade your check once and toss in a boost die. Player: *Rolls* Two success and an advantage. DM: story mode about the time, gain 500 credits."

That sort of thing. Nothing major. My big schtick will be an outlaw tech style artisan.

When I mention silly, I refer to games where the wonton slaughter of the opponents by the murder-hobos hardly get's an eye blink, but use the force while pickpocketing someone and the game throws the book at you.

Oh no, the wanton slaughter of wontons will net you a pile of conflict, it won't matter if you use the force or just a pair of chopsticks.

Read Harry Harrison's Deathworld trilogy sometime.

The lead character was a somewhat telekinetic (if I remember correctly) gambler. He got in plenty of trouble without people knowing he was cheating. He just won a lot. Too much, when it counted. And there weren't people around who could just be in the room when he was cheating to detect the force was being used.

When I mention silly, I refer to games where the wonton slaughter of the opponents by the murder-hobos hardly get's an eye blink, but use the force while pickpocketing someone and the game throws the book at you.

Oh no, the wanton slaughter of wontons will net you a pile of conflict, it won't matter if you use the force or just a pair of chopsticks.

My secret weapon:

http://www.amazon.com/Star-Wars-Lightsaber-Chopstick-version/dp/B00G9UY5KG

Move (fine manipulation) - alter dice rolls

Sense - are they bluffing?

So, keep in mind that there are games where you’re playing against other people, and games where you’re playing against the house. Slightly altering the odds in your favor when playing against a crooked house might not be a problem, but stealing the lunch money from some kid way over their head might be something else.

There are games of relatively pure chance that might be able to be altered in your favor without too much likelihood of being detected, but then there are perfectly normal non-force related things you can do in a game that are still outlawed anyway — like counting cards in blackjack.

Any use of the Force to help win a game is something that could also be detected. And winning too much, regardless of how you do it, could also wind up with you being in serious trouble.

There are benefits to high Morality, but the likelihood is that most players will wind up earning at least a little Conflict every game, and more often than not their Morality will probably still go up, just maybe not as fast.

If you earn too much Conflict too often, that’s when your Morality score is likely to start going down.

But any sentient non-perfect being is likely to earn a little Conflict now and then, just because we’re not perfect. So, I wouldn’t sweat the small stuff.

It's not like the novels where someone can pop a particularly rancid fart in a speeder, enjoy the suffering of his friends a little too much, and suddenly thirst for the blood of orphans.

Move (fine manipulation) - alter dice rolls

Sense - are they bluffing?

So, keep in mind that there are games where you’re playing against other people, and games where you’re playing against the house. Slightly altering the odds in your favor when playing against a crooked house might not be a problem, but stealing the lunch money from some kid way over their head might be something else.

There are games of relatively pure chance that might be able to be altered in your favor without too much likelihood of being detected, but then there are perfectly normal non-force related things you can do in a game that are still outlawed anyway — like counting cards in blackjack.

Any use of the Force to help win a game is something that could also be detected. And winning too much, regardless of how you do it, could also wind up with you being in serious trouble.

There are benefits to high Morality, but the likelihood is that most players will wind up earning at least a little Conflict every game, and more often than not their Morality will probably still go up, just maybe not as fast.

If you earn too much Conflict too often, that’s when your Morality score is likely to start going down.

But any sentient non-perfect being is likely to earn a little Conflict now and then, just because we’re not perfect. So, I wouldn’t sweat the small stuff.

Counting cards isn't illegal. Using a device or assistance is, but using your own natural skill is fine. Part of my POV is the force is a natural part of the character so shouldn't be a problem to use. Would a character gain conflict for using the force to win a foot race? Should you gain conflict for using the force to win a space battle? Life and death are higher stakes than some credits. Gambling is a choice that the participants make either when they sit down at the table or put their machines out, using all of your skills/faculties to win shouldn't be punished IMO.

Its not like I was planning on the character using influence to push poor orphans into betting their meager savings and then using the force again to stack the deck in my favor.

All of this is moot if I can't find a game though.

I would go it all really depends on the story. Would I give Qui-Gon some conflict for cheating Watto to win Anakin, despite the blatant cheating? Probably not.

I would go it all really depends on the story. Would I give Qui-Gon some conflict for cheating Watto to win Anakin, despite the blatant cheating? Probably not.

I think it does ultimately depend on what the Force user's end goal is with using the Force to affect the outcome of a gambling attempt.

Trying to win the parts needed to repair a ship to ensure an important figure under your protection gets safely to where they need to be? That's probably not going to be worth any Conflict, or be worth a single point at most.

Trying to swindle your way to victory in a high-stakes sabacc tourney just so that you have the money? I'd call that a pretty hefty abuse of the Force, and would probably rate it around 5 or 6 Conflict.

In regards to conflict, I would hand out 1 minimun regardless of the intentions; everyone had a reason to come around that table, so altering fate in a way they can't predict is presuming that your right is superior, more pressing then anyone else. That sense of superiority or that will to use the force to further ones self is generally assoicated to the darkside; just most well rounded force senstives could get away with it without any grand changes to their morality.

Counting cards isn't illegal. Using a device or assistance is, but using your own natural skill is fine.

Try that in Vegas or Atlantic City sometime. You’ll get your ass thrown out the door real quick.

Whatever the Casino says is illegal, basically is illegal. And if they’re any good, they’ll manipulate the local laws and the people who pass those laws so that it really is illegal and not just something that they frown on very hard.

The people who can count cards in Vegas and do so without any assistance are known, and they are blackballed. They’re not even allowed in the front door. I’d be surprised if the airlines would even let them on the plane, if the destination was Vegas.

Part of my POV is the force is a natural part of the character so shouldn't be a problem to use. Would a character gain conflict for using the force to win a foot race?

Depends on the nature of the foot race. If the people holding that race are assuming that there isn’t any external assistance being provided to anyone, then they might look at you using the Force to win the race in exactly the same way as they would look at someone with cybernetic legs that let them run faster than normal.

Conflict should be something that happens internally, based on you and your own morality and whether or not you think that something should earn you conflict over that action. But the GM might disagree with you and insist that you earn some conflict for doing something with the Force.

Aye, Conflict isn't so much the things you regret; but how those things distance you from the ordienary people you may or may not intend to serve. A lot of people fall into deprivity for simply using their talents for their own benifit.

Funnily enough, my force emergent has taken on a new player as an apprentice. He's teaching sense by taking him to a local casino. XD

Ah so conflict is different from morality. I'll read up on it when I can. Although from your description Ghostofman it may have some of the traditional features that I've always thought were silly. 1 hand of Sabacc = 2-3 conflict, blow up their speeder with them in it = 1 conflict.

But it does sound like I can gamble away using the force while helping the poor and downtrodden without having to worry about falling to the darkside.

Hmm I am not sure if that is a fair comparison. I think the conflict should revolve around a lot of what the intentions and feelings are. For example, blowing up a speeder to save your life. If a bunch of people are after you for a bounty and trying to kill you and your own. Removing the threat shouldn't be too much conflict. Maybe 1 because you killed someone. But you can always just try to incapacitate them or knock them unconscious.

Where as with the gambling you are intentionally using the force for selfish reasons. You are trying to swindle someone for personal gain. I know you could technically argue that self-preservation is selfish, but I am pretty sure that gets a pass. If however you used the force to torture or hurt your pursuers then I could see conflict popping up.

Even if you are stealing from the Rich to give to the Poor, it still doesn't seem right. You are still stealing. The road to hell is paved with the best intentions. I think that saying is a good one to start off and see if the actions are going to generate conflict. After that i suppose you should use your best judgement.

Ah so conflict is different from morality. I'll read up on it when I can. Although from your description Ghostofman it may have some of the traditional features that I've always thought were silly. 1 hand of Sabacc = 2-3 conflict, blow up their speeder with them in it = 1 conflict.

But it does sound like I can gamble away using the force while helping the poor and downtrodden without having to worry about falling to the darkside.

Hmm I am not sure if that is a fair comparison. I think the conflict should revolve around a lot of what the intentions and feelings are. For example, blowing up a speeder to save your life. If a bunch of people are after you for a bounty and trying to kill you and your own. Removing the threat shouldn't be too much conflict. Maybe 1 because you killed someone. But you can always just try to incapacitate them or knock them unconscious.

Where as with the gambling you are intentionally using the force for selfish reasons. You are trying to swindle someone for personal gain. I know you could technically argue that self-preservation is selfish, but I am pretty sure that gets a pass. If however you used the force to torture or hurt your pursuers then I could see conflict popping up.

Even if you are stealing from the Rich to give to the Poor, it still doesn't seem right. You are still stealing. The road to hell is paved with the best intentions. I think that saying is a good one to start off and see if the actions are going to generate conflict. After that i suppose you should use your best judgement.

Still, wouldn't it be better to just avoid the people or run away. Perhaps disable their vehicle. Instead no one blinks an eye that you blow them up because combat is such a big part of a role playing game. But steal some credits from the scum of the galaxy to give to orphans, fix your ship so that you can complete the mission to save the planet, or even to buy the grenade that you blow the bounty hunters up with and it's considered more of a conflict than killing several sentient beings.

I know life is pretty cheap in the star wars galaxy, but still.

The road to hell may be paved by the best intentions, but I think you're paving the express lane killing sentients as opposed to the slow lane with taking some money from an organization.

I do agree that the GM should use their best judgment.

Ah so conflict is different from morality. I'll read up on it when I can. Although from your description Ghostofman it may have some of the traditional features that I've always thought were silly. 1 hand of Sabacc = 2-3 conflict, blow up their speeder with them in it = 1 conflict.

But it does sound like I can gamble away using the force while helping the poor and downtrodden without having to worry about falling to the darkside.

Hmm I am not sure if that is a fair comparison. I think the conflict should revolve around a lot of what the intentions and feelings are. For example, blowing up a speeder to save your life. If a bunch of people are after you for a bounty and trying to kill you and your own. Removing the threat shouldn't be too much conflict. Maybe 1 because you killed someone. But you can always just try to incapacitate them or knock them unconscious.

Where as with the gambling you are intentionally using the force for selfish reasons. You are trying to swindle someone for personal gain. I know you could technically argue that self-preservation is selfish, but I am pretty sure that gets a pass. If however you used the force to torture or hurt your pursuers then I could see conflict popping up.

Even if you are stealing from the Rich to give to the Poor, it still doesn't seem right. You are still stealing. The road to hell is paved with the best intentions. I think that saying is a good one to start off and see if the actions are going to generate conflict. After that i suppose you should use your best judgement.

Still, wouldn't it be better to just avoid the people or run away. Perhaps disable their vehicle. Instead no one blinks an eye that you blow them up because combat is such a big part of a role playing game. But steal some credits from the scum of the galaxy to give to orphans, fix your ship so that you can complete the mission to save the planet, or even to buy the grenade that you blow the bounty hunters up with and it's considered more of a conflict than killing several sentient beings.

I know life is pretty cheap in the star wars galaxy, but still.

The road to hell may be paved by the best intentions, but I think you're paving the express lane killing sentients as opposed to the slow lane with taking some money from an organization.

I do agree that the GM should use their best judgment.

I think that's part of the old way of thinking the other systems tended to take, and more importantly be interpreted by the players/GM. Use a force power for something other then the goodest of goods and you get a darkside point. But just be a total a-hole without using the force and that's ok.