Or what we see is Palpatine using Unleash for a lot of damage on one turn, and then immediately grabbing the top initiative slot in the next turn to use Move to send Windu sailing out the window. After all, he's enough of a prick to do just that, and it's not too far-fetched to figure that Windu was staggered from a critical injury on top of the Ensnare effect leaving him immobilized, even if just for that one turn. By the time Windu could properly act, he's already been flung out the window to his doom.

We also don't see the Sith trying to simply fling people into the air in the prequels for the simple reason that the people they're facing are fully trained Jedi, who could quite easily use their own Force abilities to mitigate/negate the fall outright. Mechanically, they'd be opposing it with an Athletics check, and probably have Enhance as well for the Force Leap ability, which the GM might factor into the opposed check as well.

We don't see Vader doing it on Luke during either of their cinematic confrontations because he wanted Luke alive to serve as his apprentice and overthrow Palpatine. And by the time Palpatine stepped up to the plate in RotJ, he was pissed off enough at Luke's defiance that he wanted the brat to suffer rather than give the kid a quick and far less painful exit. As for lack of EU examples, Vader (in the EU) is similar to Maul in that if he engages in a fight with a notable opponent, he doesn't just want to win but wants to utterly crush that opponent and prove his superiority.

We also don't see the Sith trying to simply fling people into the air in the prequels for the simple reason that the people they're facing are fully trained Jedi, who could quite easily use their own Force abilities to mitigate/negate the fall outright.

I'm now imagining a delightful alternative version of Darth Maul's entrance in TPM.

Qui Gon: "We'll handle this."

Guard Captain: "No, we'll handle this."

Fifteen guards shoot into the air like the streamers from a party popper.

Guard Captain (groaning): "you handle this."

We see that thing happening with Anakin and Dooku at the end of AotC as well; Dooku hits Anakin with Unleash while simultaneously picking him up off the ground and flinging him into a wall. Maybe it's just the narrative effects of a Triumph?

Nope an Action to Unleash a maneuver to Move or bind since both can do that.

Having said the above, I am actually surprised by how many people here immediately thought of using move to pick someone up and let them fall (not saying they use it like that, but just that being the first idea). Thus far, I've never used move like that, only because of what I interpret the RAI to be around that power. IMHO, everything but the Hurl upgrade is meant for utility; the Hurl upgrade is meant for damage and utility. Thus, if I was to lift someone up to drop them, I'd either expect an opposed check, or to have the Hurl upgrade, or both.

Lot of discussion about this one. Your post is as good a launching post as any.

Hurling someone up in the air and then dropping them need not be the unbalanced exploit some people seem to think it is. EotE and its sibling publications are narrative games. That is the rules define outcomes rather what happens. The latter is left within the purview of tone GM and players. If you want to hurl someone to cause damage, you need the Control upgrade that lets you do that. Full stop. If you do have it then you get the damage specified.

The rules define what effect you can have narratively, that is all.

Player: "I want to hurl him straight up in tone air and let him fall back down to the ground."

GM: "You need the Control upgrade to damage people by hurling them."

And there it should end. A player doesn't get to damage someone by saying their character does, they get to do it because the rules allow them to. Just like I don't get three bonus damage on an explosion without the talents from the Demolitionist tree - even if I say "my character carefully places the charges". I need the appropriate purchases.

I like your thinking. In this case, though, I think there is a balance to this sort of action. As others have pointed out here, there's something inherently cruel about picking someone up with the Force, moving them to Medium or Long range, and letting them drop. They are giving their target ample time to experience and feel raw terror. That is a vile act, one that really doesn't set in as quick if you hit someone with a speedertruck. I might judge the speedertruck squash overkill and give a few conflict, but dropping someone from Medium height is akin to torture, or at least torment. That's an 8-10 conflict award to you, Mr. Force User. You want to do that every round? Okay...you'll be using those Black pips on your Force die rather quickly, then...

There's the balance point to dealing damage with the Hurl control upgrade; you can do it, but you'll be going Dark Side rather quickly.

So maybe a stupid question, but who cares if you go darkside? I'll take the 10 conflict points. Then I'll do it again and take another 10. At some point, I'll be "dark" but so what? I can still use most Force Powers, right? My strain/wound balance is a little different, but I can still continue doing what I've been doing, for the most part. I don't see a huge penalty for being dark (I'm not suggesting there should be one, but wondering if I am missing something obvious ).

The conflict thing brings me to another point though: The blurb in Lure of the Lost, about negative Conflict Points, and losing Conflict Points... that's not an official rule, right?

You can't use lightside pips to power force powers. You have to spend strain and flip a destiny.

You lose 2 strain gain 2 wounds and at the start of the game session you flip one destiny to dark.

The conflict thing brings me to another point though: The blurb in Lure of the Lost, about negative Conflict Points, and losing Conflict Points... that's not an official rule, right?

I was wondering about that, too. It wasn't in the beta, but it's possible they changed it since then and we'll see it in the core rules when they arrive. Anyway, I sort of liked the mechanic (it made emotional strength and weakness a little more relevant) so I'm hoping it's in the core rules.

You can't use lightside pips to power force powers. You have to spend strain and flip a destiny.

You lose 2 strain gain 2 wounds and at the start of the game session you flip one destiny to dark.

Is that it though? Your light pips become what your dark pips were, adjust wound/strain thresholds, and an extra DP at the start of a session? I ask because it seems that is very close to status quo, and so, not really an incentive to not go dark side (again, I don't think there needs to be one).

If that is the case, who cares how much conflict you get, mechanically? It becomes purely a narrative thing at that point, not wanting to "fall" or whatever. If I as a player want my PC to remain "light side" (for any reason) then THAT is my only incentive to avoid conflict. Ok, technically not "only" but I really can't count the above as anything really significant?

You can't use lightside pips to power force powers. You have to spend strain and flip a destiny.

You lose 2 strain gain 2 wounds and at the start of the game session you flip one destiny to dark.

Is that it though? Your light pips become what your dark pips were, adjust wound/strain thresholds, and an extra DP at the start of a session? I ask because it seems that is very close to status quo, and so, not really an incentive to not go dark side (again, I don't think there needs to be one).

If that is the case, who cares how much conflict you get, mechanically? It becomes purely a narrative thing at that point, not wanting to "fall" or whatever. If I as a player want my PC to remain "light side" (for any reason) then THAT is my only incentive to avoid conflict. Ok, technically not "only" but I really can't count the above as anything really significant?

You say "purely narrative" as if that wasn't important. It's the most important thing in the game. It's why it's called a ROLE-PLAYING GAME. You're supposed to care about what happens to your character, not just about whether or not some numbers on a sheet of paper get higher or lower.

You say "purely narrative" as if that wasn't important. It's the most important thing in the game. It's why it's called a ROLE-PLAYING GAME. You're supposed to care about what happens to your character, not just about whether or not some numbers on a sheet of paper get higher or lower.

That's kind of my point. People bring up mechanics as incentive. I'm saying they aren't - the narrative is. So, if someone does not care if they are light or dark, the mechanics won't be an incentive. Yet, they are always brought up...as if they were. I may care about what happens to my character, but I may not care whether my character is light or dark. Thus, I'll keep doing things like using Move to lift opponents and let them fall. Or maybe I'll want my character to go dark side. Again, the mechanics don't discourage this at all, so bring on the conflict, please!

That is why I am confused by the mechanics being brought up so much as disincentive to using Move in certain ways. They aren't - the narrative is (or might be).

And I'll again state I personally don't use Move in that fashion due to RAI, nor do I think there needs to be an incentive for players to stay light side. The way it is now gives player more freedom and choice, and that's the way it should be

OK, now I see what you mean. But I suspect that most people, if not all, who choose to play a Force user is going to have some sort of notion of whether they want to be light side or dark. I really don't see anyone being completely indifferent here. If I as a GM saw one of my players going up and down on the Morality scale like some yoyo I'd sit him down for a talk about where he wanted his character to go.

I think I would be a yo-yo to you

I play my character in a way so that he cares about the outcome, not the morality scale. As a player, I never actually think about conflict points. I think about what I want my character to do, and I do that. The result of that may alter my morality (or not) but I got to do what I wanted. I am never going to restrict my character based on what some mechanic does to me - I think that's silly. Do things you enjoy. Do cool things.

I think if you sat me down, and asked me that, I would answer "It depends on the scene, my character is not static. He evolves, which is why sometimes he may go one way, and sometimes the other. Adhering to consistency eventually prevents you from doing cool things, and I want to do cool things, first and foremost, before anything else."

Then I'd probably refer to points #1, #2, #4, and #10 here haha

I think I would be a yo-yo to you

I play my character in a way so that he cares about the outcome, not the morality scale. As a player, I never actually think about conflict points. I think about what I want my character to do, and I do that. The result of that may alter my morality (or not) but I got to do what I wanted. I am never going to restrict my character based on what some mechanic does to me - I think that's silly. Do things you enjoy. Do cool things.

I think if you sat me down, and asked me that, I would answer "It depends on the scene, my character is not static. He evolves, which is why sometimes he may go one way, and sometimes the other. Adhering to consistency eventually prevents you from doing cool things, and I want to do cool things, first and foremost, before anything else."

Then I'd probably refer to points #1, #2, #4, and #10 here haha

To answer your explicit question from earlier, there are mechanical differences between Light and Dark side characters but nothing that makes Dark side inherently a punishment. They're simply different. So yes, this is as intended - it's a role-playing issue not a mechanical advantage / disadvantage thing.

To answer a question you didn't ask, you're tending toward the dark side with your approach. If your interest is in outcomes, not means / method, that's a Dark Side attitude. Anakin only cares about saving his wife. And he will hurt anyone and overthrow the entire Jedi order in order to do so. "Ends justifies the means" could almost be the tenet of the Dark Side.

To answer a question you didn't ask, you're tending toward the dark side with your approach. If your interest is in outcomes, not means / method, that's a Dark Side attitude. Anakin only cares about saving his wife. And he will hurt anyone and overthrow the entire Jedi order in order to do so. "Ends justifies the means" could almost be the tenet of the Dark Side.

I agree! In fact, when I was writing my response, I had "the ends justify the means" in my head, so you are spot on. From what I've seen (movies, clone wars), I think you're right and that approach for my PC is more dark side. This isn't something I'm aiming for or trying to avoid - it is secondary to me. If (when?) the game takes me there, it will be a new thing to enjoy. If I end up light side, again, a new thing to explore. Win-win as I see it

Don't forget that the Dark Side taints the Destiny pool (according to the beta). So if a character goes too dark, one of the light side tokens generated at the beginning of the session would be auto-flipped to a dark token.

That's kind of my point. People bring up mechanics as incentive. I'm saying they aren't - the narrative is. So, if someone does not care if they are light or dark, the mechanics won't be an incentive. Yet, they are always brought up...as if they were. I may care about what happens to my character, but I may not care whether my character is light or dark. Thus, I'll keep doing things like using Move to lift opponents and let them fall. Or maybe I'll want my character to go dark side. Again, the mechanics don't discourage this at all, so bring on the conflict, please!

That is why I am confused by the mechanics being brought up so much as disincentive to using Move in certain ways. They aren't - the narrative is (or might be)

But you see, a lot of people do care if they're light or dark. And (in my experience) a number of those people are the type of players who don't always separate the narrative from the mechanical. About half I'd say, if my gaming experience is the norm.

Conflict is often toted as a mechanical balance because there are players out there who, if given no tangible consequences for their actions, will sometimes do outlandish things simply because they can. Many, MANY times I have notified a player that their action will earn Conflict (or Dark Side Points, in previous systems), only to have them grumble acceptance that "yeah, that action probably would be worthy of a DSP; let me do something else..." They need that brake to curtail the outlandsh, the cartoony, the black comedy. Is it fun to lift up a Stormtrooper, dangle them over the railing, and go for the "Long Way Down Bonus" by letting them drop? Absolutley! It's hilarious, and gives me a reason to use my "Willheim Scream" app on my tablet! Is it worth Dark Side Points or Conflict? Absolutely, because it's cruel. Better to blast him and be done with it than to "play with your food".

The Conflict deterrent reminds players why they're taking an action. I reminds the player to think about what they're doing, and if their character really would use Move to drop their target from a lethal height and earn that Conflict.

The Devs have also said that players are well within their rights to play a Dark Sider. They designed it so there would be consequences to going Dark Side, and mechanics, and restrictions, but not hard-core penalties. Hell, they designed it so you can start as a Dark Sider if you really want to.

It really is all about the character. To a Dark Sider, this is a slightly cheaper way to get Move to deal damage, and maybe that's an undocumented (until now) benefit of going Dark Side; it gives you more options to inflict harm on people that are closed off for folks trying to walk in the light.

EDIT: Oh nice, topic post #66...

DarthGM: So basically, because players tend to NOT separate the mechanics from the narrative, conflict as a deterrent works. Would that be an accurate summary?

I guess this clashes with the philosophy & preferences I have when it comes to playing RPGs. Given the premises I have for any group playing a tabletop RPG, the mechanics would lead to some problematic scenarios. However, a valid retort could be "change your premise" because that solves the issue, without changing the mechanics of this particular game. Off-topic here so I'll shut up now

DarthGM: So basically, because players tend to NOT separate the mechanics from the narrative, conflict as a deterrent works. Would that be an accurate summary?

I guess this clashes with the philosophy & preferences I have when it comes to playing RPGs. Given the premises I have for any group playing a tabletop RPG, the mechanics would lead to some problematic scenarios. However, a valid retort could be "change your premise" because that solves the issue, without changing the mechanics of this particular game. Off-topic here so I'll shut up now

Sadly, not every gaming group is comprised of high-minded players, and not every GM has the luxury of being so selective of who they let into the group. And not even the best of role-players is immune to the temptation to abuse whatever powers their character has. There's probably plenty of super-hero RPG horror stories where a Superman-style PC that's supposed to be a paragon of Truth and Justice winds up going full-blown Superdickery.

It's great that you've got a group that doesn't need a mechanical reinforcement that "doing evil acts carries an in-game consequence," but as Phil noted, not every group has that luxury. I've had more instances in WEG Star Wars than I'd like of players deciding that having Force powers enables them to be absolute pricks simply because they've got powers, and then getting all sulky when I cited their dark actions would have a consequence in the form of a Dark Side point.

Would the designers have loved to not have to include the Conflict mechanic as a form of reinforcement? Probably, but given they're writing the book for a very broad and non-uniform audience, something like that is needed to help the GM provide a means to warn their players that certain actions are cruel and/or outright evil. Otherwise, the game quickly devolves into being a group of quasi-psychic murder-hobos with laser swords.

And not even the best of role-players is immune to the temptation to abuse whatever powers their character has. There's probably plenty of super-hero RPG horror stories where a Superman-style PC that's supposed to be a paragon of Truth and Justice winds up going full-blown Superdickery.

Who decides what is abuse though? If that's what the character wanted to do, and the group agreed on the tone/setting before the adventure/campaign started...? Of course, if that player is going against what was previously agreed (say in a session 0) without discussing it with anyone, yeah it is abuse. I would call it being a ****.

It's great that you've got a group that doesn't need a mechanical reinforcement that "doing evil acts carries an in-game consequence," but as Phil noted, not every group has that luxury.

If players don't care about the story, then they aren't invested. Try to find a way to get the players invested in the story, and then you will have players that care about their PCs falling to the dark side.

And it's not that falling to the dark side is necessarily a bad thing for a player—some players might want it—but it should be a choice that actually means something, not just "ho hum now, I'm a dark side character and there are some new rules...and I guess I'll just keep doing my thing." If that's the attitude the player has, then the GM has failed to successfully engage the player in the story. It's time to up the ante.

If I had a player that didn't care whether his PC fell to the dark side, and his Morality ended up dropping to below 30, I would disallow the player from playing his character anymore until he came up with something really good that detailed the PC's ultimate fall to the dark side, and then we roleplayed it. That kind of stuff usually works to get players invested in the narrative: when they actually take part in creating it, they value it inherently.

If I had a player that didn't care whether his PC fell to the dark side, and his Morality ended up dropping to below 30, I would disallow the player from playing his character anymore...

... until he came up with something really good that detailed the PC's ultimate fall to the dark side, and then we roleplayed it.

That kind of stuff usually works to get players invested in the narrative: when they actually take part in creating it, they value it inherently.

Further, I think in the scenario you described, it isn't solely up to the GM to engage the player. The player has a responsibility too. I dislike the notion that the GM has to prepare everything, babysit, and then on top of that, be responsible for the fun of the group. Everyone around the table should be responsible for contributing to the fun, their own enjoyment included.

If I had a player that didn't care whether his PC fell to the dark side, and his Morality ended up dropping to below 30, I would disallow the player from playing his character anymore...

Just because the player didn't care about the same thing you do, you would institute punishment?

No, I would get him to play the game That's like calling it "punishment" to stop an unconscious PC from acting, or to enfore the -2 Strain Threshold Penalty from an activated Obligation, or telling him that he missed his attack because he doesn't have any uncancelled Success pips showing in his dice pool. If he doesn't want to play the game, then he doesn't have to play the game. But if he wants to play the game, then he has to accept the rules! I can't really fathom a player ever actually being this way though, so I admit that in a real-life situation I would expect myself to be well on top of the situation before it became a situation.

... until he came up with something really good that detailed the PC's ultimate fall to the dark side, and then we roleplayed it.

What if the player thinks "X" is good and you don't? Or the player isn't interested in describing the fall, but still wants to play because the player likes everything else (and is engaged in every other aspect)?

It's really difficult to talk hypothetically, but if a player is playing a Force user who become evil, then that is a significant plot point and I would point out to him that he is doing this Star Wars game a disservice by ignoring this aspect. He would be creating a huge amount of dissonance between his actions (which are dark side, and which are the reason he fell) and the in-universe (not to mention out-of-game) perception of his character.

Hypothetically, If he's not interested in playing a fallen Force user, then I would work with him to create the kind of character that he wants to roleplay.

Again, it's really hard to make calls on something that I can't imagine ever having to deal with, and that I would most certainly catch long before it happened, and work with the player to make sure that this is the direction they want to take their character in.

• If the player doesn't want to play a dark sider, then they shouldn't be doing dark-sidey stuff, and I will work with them to make sure their actions don't generate too much Conflict.
• If they simply don't want to narrate their fall, then they can start with the -21 Morality option, and start as a dark-sider.
• If the want to play a character with no Morality score, then they can create an Edge of the Empire or Age of Rebellion character, whichever fits the current game best, and take either an Obligation or Morality score. There are still Force using specializations they can use from those lines, no problem.
• And other solutions as appropriate.

Again, I would expect to be able head off this sort of problem well before it became a problem.

If I had a player that didn't care whether his PC fell to the dark side, and his Morality ended up dropping to below 30, I would disallow the player from playing his character anymore...

Just because the player didn't care about the same thing you do, you would institute punishment?

No, I would get him to play the game That's like calling it "punishment" to stop an unconscious PC from acting, or to enfore the -2 Strain Threshold Penalty from an activated Obligation, or telling him that he missed his attack because he doesn't have any uncancelled Success pips showing in his dice pool. If he doesn't want to play the game, then he doesn't have to play the game. But if he wants to play the game, then he has to accept the rules! I can't really fathom a player ever actually being this way though, so I admit that in a real-life situation I would expect myself to be well on top of the situation before it became a situation.

Wait, why are you taking someone's sheet away from them? I dont recall seeing that anywhere in the rules...

If he managed to get his morality below 30, he's playing pretty edgy. Getting the mechanical effects of going darkside are a natural consiquence. Losing his character to GM fiat is not.

If I had a player that didn't care whether his PC fell to the dark side, and his Morality ended up dropping to below 30, I would disallow the player from playing his character anymore...

Just because the player didn't care about the same thing you do, you would institute punishment?

No, I would get him to play the game That's like calling it "punishment" to stop an unconscious PC from acting, or to enfore the -2 Strain Threshold Penalty from an activated Obligation, or telling him that he missed his attack because he doesn't have any uncancelled Success pips showing in his dice pool. If he doesn't want to play the game, then he doesn't have to play the game. But if he wants to play the game, then he has to accept the rules! I can't really fathom a player ever actually being this way though, so I admit that in a real-life situation I would expect myself to be well on top of the situation before it became a situation.

Wait, why are you taking someone's sheet away from them? I dont recall seeing that anywhere in the rules...

If he managed to get his morality below 30, he's playing pretty edgy. Getting the mechanical effects of going darkside are a natural consiquence. Losing his character to GM fiat is not.

Whoa there! I don't think I said that anywhere at all, and it appears I have been quoted out of context. I can understand how a split quote might lead to someone getting the wrong impression, but context is actually very important.

Since we are talking hypothetically here, I suppose a justification is in order (even though at the end of the day a GM shouldn't need to justify the calls he makes in his own games).

1. If we're talking rules and natural consequences, I could throw page 221 of the Beta up for discussion. "Falling to the Dark Side," according to the rules, "should be a major moment in any story." That is a natural consequence. I could choose to ignore that bit of rules as a GM, but quite frankly I would like to keep it in play because I find it very in keeping with the Star Wars mythos.
2. This game is by nature a cooperative game. If the players stop cooperating with me as the GM, I can only assume that somewhere I dropped the ball, and that I've gotta take steps to bring back the cooperative element. And sometimes those steps are more drastic than others.
3. I am not saying that, if you as a player of mine weren't interested in playing your fall, that I would take your character sheet away. That is a jerk move, and not something I endorse.
4. What I am saying is, if you want to play a dark sider, then great: play a dark sider.
   1. ​If you are not interested in playing a dark sider; or, more importantly, in roleplaying the fall to the dark side from being a heroic Force user; then you are playing the wrong sort of character. Let's find you a different core mechanic (my first choice would be Obligation, unless the PCs are part of the Rebel Alliance), ditch Morality, and design the sort of character you actually want to play. Whether that entails the PC becoming an anti-hero NPC, or disappearing for a while only to come back (re-designed by cooperation between the GM and player), or any other type of arrangement, is really just a matter of being appropriate to the situation at hand.
   2. Heck, for that matter, just put your character out of play for a session. Then have him come back rebuilt and all dark, and leave the details of his fall a mystery to the rest of the group. That's a cool, cinematic kind of thing.
5. My main problem would lie in the hypothetical player signing on to the Morality mechanic and then refusing to actually play it. That is a breach of contract between player and GM.
   1. Now again, this is all completely hypothetical, so if there is some real-world situation where the GM and player have an understanding, then that is of course a completely different situation. But in my imagination, where there is a player simply refusing to acknowledge his character's Morality, then we would have a problem that would need to be addressed.
   2. As I indicated earlier, my first inclination would be to simply put the character on narrative hiatus until the player and I could figure out an appropriate "fall" scene. That is IMO the easiest way to do it, since I have done a few falls in the past, and each time the players were very happy with the outcome, and also with their (sometimes temporary) replacement PCs.
      1. One of them basically betrayed his whole party (we set it up sessions in advance) and became an NPC. We had built a replacement character for the player, who basically came to the heroes' aid at the last second, and thereby the player ingratiated himself to the rest of the group No hard feelings were had.
      2. Another PC, in a different game, disappeared for a few sessions and then came back with a red lightsaber, didn't say much of anything, and rejoined the PCs as if nothing had happened. The tone of the game had changed, but the PC herself played it cool and aloof. We're actually still in the middle of that one so I'm interested to see how it develops! But the player played a Beast Rider for those few sessions and loved it. Might've had something to do with a Triple Triumph on a combat check...with which he routed an entire platoon of stormtroopers...

@awayputurwpn: I probably don't understand. If the player does not care about his character going to the dark side (on the morality scale), but cares about everything else, including the actions the PC takes, AND his morality ends up below 30, what would you do? The first thing you said leads me to think you'd prevent him from playing, the second thing you said leads me to think you'd continue playing with a discussion. It seems either way, you would bring this up, specifically, during a session 0 or something like that?

If he's not interested in playing a fallen Force user

What if he is, but the morality scale is of no consequence to him? What if he is, but in some unique way that other people may not have thought of, or don't associate with a fallen force user? Who is to say he is not playing or roleplaying "appropriately" in this case?

One thing I have a problem with is locking players into the way they must play their PC, forever. If they initially say they want to go in direction X, but through the course of a campaign go in direction Y, I see nothing wrong with it (X!=Y:)). The game evolved, the character evolved, a new story was created. From your last response, I am unsure if you are for or against this? The character changing styles during a campaign?

This topic is about Move and damage right? LOL

EDIT: whenever I say last or second response, I am referring to post #72. For post #74, I agree with most things you said, and my questions would basically go to item 4), subitem 1)