I've only been on these forums for about a week, and you've managed to show me in a very short amount of time how good I have it with my current group. If I ever got stuck with someone like you, I'd probably be turned off to RPG's for good.

LOL. Bantha, please...

"Someone like me" gives their players a better story by not wasting creative time energy dealing with bizarre character choices like Hutt starfighter pilots

"Someone like me" doesn't let one player dominate the table, reminding everyone about their character's special needs.

"Someone like me" keeps the game on track using common sense instead having endless debates about what's allowed per the RAW

"Someone like me" doesn't mind when a disruptive player stops attending because their character isn't the only one getting attention, which means

"Someone like me" has d@mned grateful players when those disruptive players are gone.

I'm not calling you a disruptive player, but you're certainly potentially disruptive behavior. I don't mind telling you its a bad idea, and I don't care if the other players at your table may not appreciate it. And if you ever get stuck at a table with an obnoxious player and a GM that doesn't reign them in, then you might realize "someone like me" isn't so bad.

I'm not going to use the term "someone like you" to describe you, because I don't know you, the same way you don't know me. I'm not going to call you a disruptive player because I've never had you at my table (as far as I know). Frankly, if you had said you were willing to play another character if the Hutt was too disruptive, I would have worded that response much gentler, but you gave little indication of flexibility.

If you want to take this personally, being called on what was presented as a serious pain for your GM, fine. Not my table, not my problem.

Players like you are why GMs like me think Hutts should never be presented as playable species.

So... Do you just hate your GM, or what?

Pretty sure the reason I'm taking your remarks personally is because they seem like personal remarks. I'm sorry, why "players like me" are taking them personally.

Why not replace the Y-Wing with a HWK-290? It's plenty capable.

A HWK-290 isn't a fighter - it's a light freighter/courier ship designed for multiple crew.

If there was a Hutt and some other non-space-combat PC's, this is actually the way I would go. Alternately, the Wayfarer & a hanger pod if you have a dedicated Medical & Mechanic PCs.

The problem with both of those is it breaks the "Squadron" feel of that campaign. With the HWK you get more of a special ops kind of group, and the Wayfarer gives you a very different feel since you essentially have a mobil base for your squadron that has to stay out of the actual fighting (it's under weaponed to actually engage just about anything).

Y-Wings have 1 HP; it doesn't seem unreasonable to have to use that HP to make it "Hutt-compatible". I also mentioned maybe having to have a crew help me into and out of the Y-Wing, and that I suffer strain if I have to do it myself. Overall, I think there are more than enough ways to make this work.

Actually, the BTL-S3 Y-Wing has a second seat for a sensor officer/gunner behind the pilot. Seems sensible enough to me to allow a Hutt to fly a modified BTL-S3 without the use of that extra crew member.

Keep in mind that the X-Wing and Y-wing need the Astromech unit in them to make hyperspace jumps as the droid is the astro-navigation computer to make hyperspace jumps with. So removing the droid is not a long term solution.

Based on the description of the BTl-S3 Y-Wing, it seems that the 2nd seat is separate from the Astromech. So altering that to fit a single Hutt, rather than 2 crew members, shouldn't affect the addition of an Astromech.

Just handwave that some friendly techs did some "aftermarket modifications" to the fighter's cockpit and have him fly it as normal. Saying "your character can't do this because of his species" is a pretty crappy thing to do to a player when the thing he's trying to do isn't something the rules specifically states that he can't. If we were talking about a player wanting his droid character to be Force sensitive, or a Hutt character wanting to make two movement manoeuvres in a turn I'd understand, because the player is given that information right at character creation and knows what he's getting himself into. But not letting him fly a starfighter? Come on, that's not fun.

As a GM I think it's pretty crappy if I say I'm going to run you through a game that is going to heavily feature space combat and you choose a species that doesn't fit in most of the space fighters that is presented in the book. It's a two way street. The GM needs to work with his players but a player should also be working with the GM. If the GM outlines his campaign idea ahead of time and you sign on to it then you should be picking character concepts that fit the campaign he is offering to run.

If you pick a Hutt knowing it's a starfighter game then you have no one but yourself to blame for not having any fun. I'm not the one who told you to play a giant slug in a game that was going to be 60% in the cockpit of a Y Wing.

Out of curiosity, isn't there a career in AoR that is an officer type of character, one that sits in the command center calling out what formation to use, etc (buffing the other players)?

That seems like a fairly decent job for a Hutt, plus provides a memorable face character for the party. Just my two cents, and forgive me if I'm wrong about the career, I only have Force and Destiny and Suns of Fortune.

I think it both unfriendly and appalling the responses on this thread. OP wasn't asking for opinions on whether or not the idea was any good or if it would "work", and he made it clear his group was on board with it. HE was the one who had the fridge moment, not the rest of the group.

Silly idea? YMMV, but that seems to be the gist of the game anyway (or that's my take on his comment, at least). These comments that he's a troublesome player or whatever need to stop.

Why not replace the Y-Wing with a HWK-290? It's plenty capable.

A HWK-290 isn't a fighter - it's a light freighter/courier ship designed for multiple crew.

That's just a label, and for flavour I could see avoiding it. But mechanically there's little difference. In fact, the HWK has quite a few improvements: Handling +1 vs Handling 0; better sensors; much higher Hull and Strain. The Y-Wing has weapons, but only one hard point; whereas the HWK has no weapons, but with 5 hard points you could easily replicate the load out and then some. The only improvements on the Y-Wing are the hyperdrive (no big deal), and better armour, which basically saves 500cr / hit.

I think it both unfriendly and appalling the responses on this thread. OP wasn't asking for opinions on whether or not the idea was any good or if it would "work", and he made it clear his group was on board with it. HE was the one who had the fridge moment, not the rest of the group.

Silly idea? YMMV, but that seems to be the gist of the game anyway (or that's my take on his comment, at least). These comments that he's a troublesome player or whatever need to stop.

Actually .....

Or, as a GM, would you rule that Hutts simply can't do a lot of things that a bipedal character can do?

The OP does ask us if the idea is workable.

He did.

He did not however ask for personal attacks, having his ideas called crappy or being labelled a troublesome player by people that, I guess, lack the open mind that playing/running an RPG needs.

I think it both unfriendly and appalling the responses on this thread. OP wasn't asking for opinions on whether or not the idea was any good or if it would "work", and he made it clear his group was on board with it. HE was the one who had the fridge moment, not the rest of the group.

Silly idea? YMMV, but that seems to be the gist of the game anyway (or that's my take on his comment, at least). These comments that he's a troublesome player or whatever need to stop.

Actually .....

Or, as a GM, would you rule that Hutts simply can't do a lot of things that a bipedal character can do?

The OP does ask us if the idea is workable.

Grr, trying to quote from my phone is not fun.

And that justifies the vehemence...?

And he was still only asking if anyone would do it differently, which is more like a house rule question to me.

Edit: delayed post

Just handwave that some friendly techs did some "aftermarket modifications" to the fighter's cockpit and have him fly it as normal. Saying "your character can't do this because of his species" is a pretty crappy thing to do to a player when the thing he's trying to do isn't something the rules specifically states that he can't. If we were talking about a player wanting his droid character to be Force sensitive, or a Hutt character wanting to make two movement manoeuvres in a turn I'd understand, because the player is given that information right at character creation and knows what he's getting himself into. But not letting him fly a starfighter? Come on, that's not fun.

As a GM I think it's pretty crappy if I say I'm going to run you through a game that is going to heavily feature space combat and you choose a species that doesn't fit in most of the space fighters that is presented in the book. It's a two way street. The GM needs to work with his players but a player should also be working with the GM. If the GM outlines his campaign idea ahead of time and you sign on to it then you should be picking character concepts that fit the campaign he is offering to run.

If you pick a Hutt knowing it's a starfighter game then you have no one but yourself to blame for not having any fun. I'm not the one who told you to play a giant slug in a game that was going to be 60% in the cockpit of a Y Wing .

Emphasis mine, for the perfection.

What the OP described doing is absolutely worthy of the "Troublesome player" label.

My initial "Do you hate the GM" quote was meant in equal parts jest and serious, to give the OP the benefit of the doubt, but I guess even that was too much.

"Players like [the OP]" meant players that do this kind of disruptive $#!t and then claim it's a good idea and the RAW should be interpreted to suit their concepts needs, typically at the expense of others at the table. It's a problem not unique to this game, and has nothing to do with whether or not the GM has an open mind.

The "I should be able to do whatever I want and the GM should work around it" mentality that the OP has persisted in demonstrating is exactly the kind of shenanigans that kills games. If *not* supporting that means I'm not welcome here, this isn't somewhere worth posting.

I did nothing to assail anyone's character here until I was was attacked by the tools above, and frankly I was fine trolling them a bit and leaving until they decided to keep maligning me after I had left the conversation.

He did.

He did not however ask for personal attacks, having his ideas called crappy or being labelled a troublesome player by people that, I guess, lack the open mind that playing/running an RPG needs.

Right, buddy. And you're the white knight with the open mind that decides you need to go disrupt multiple other threads for social justice and demean someone you disagree with.

I hope you two get stuck in the same game sometime and ruin it. You two deserve each other.

You mean the threads I was already discussing in before you became an aggresive participant?

No idea what crawled up you today but I suggest anyone that is aa tired of this guy as I am now to push that report button.

I guess calling people out for their rude and obnoxious behaviour is being a white knight or a social justice warrior in your world. Well, in that case I am proud to be just that. This is just pathetic.

I think we need to back up off the belligerence on both sides. Ultimately what a Hutt can or can't do is down to the GM and the players. People have already mentioned that you can just hand-wave the size of the Y-Wing, assume it's been properly retrofitted, or swap it for a comparable ship that better suits a Hutt character. What we seem to be arguing about is whether or not this is unfair to the GM, and we frankly don't know. Maybe he ran the idea of a Hutt by the GM and got the go-ahead, or maybe he brow-beat the guy into letting him play one. The latter would be respectful, the former wouldn't. We simply don't know.

I don't allow Hutts in my game (and I'd laugh my player down if they suggested a Hutt in a starfighting game unless they had a particularly brilliant premise), but there's nothing to say the GM in this situation has the same problem. "But the book says I can!" is and always has been a bratty excuse, but we don't know that's what's happening here. As for the OP, maybe just talk it over with your GM? That seems a more reasonable alternative. I'd also put a lot of thought into what a Hutt can bring to the table that others can't, as far as role playing in this particular game. If the GM does decide to put extra limitations on your character, is it going to be worth the effort of slowing the game down and making it more difficult for other players? Is it going to be worthwhile if, say, the GM leads the players open to a high octane speeder race and you either have to stay behind or your GM has to come up with an alternative to accommodate you? I think sometimes GMs approve things thinking they may be a cool idea or wanting to keep everyone happy without fully considering the implications of the situation. I know I've done that plenty.

You mean the threads I was already discussing in before you became an aggresive participant?

No idea what crawled up you today but I suggest anyone that is aa tired of this guy as I am now to push that report button.

I guess calling people out for their rude and obnoxious behaviour is being a white knight or a social justice warrior in your world. Well, in that case I am proud to be just that. This is just pathetic.

Whether or not you were in the conversation before doesn't mean you aren't being disruptive.

I think we need to back up off the belligerence on both sides. Ultimately what a Hutt can or can't do is down to the GM and the players. People have already mentioned that you can just hand-wave the size of the Y-Wing, assume it's been properly retrofitted, or swap it for a comparable ship that better suits a Hutt character. What we seem to be arguing about is whether or not this is unfair to the GM, and we frankly don't know. Maybe he ran the idea of a Hutt by the GM and got the go-ahead, or maybe he brow-beat the guy into letting him play one. The latter would be respectful, the former wouldn't. We simply don't know.

I don't allow Hutts in my game, but there's nothing to say the GM in this situation has the same problem. "But the book says I can!" is and always has been a bratty excuse, but we don't know that's what's happening here. As for the OP, maybe just talk it over with your GM? That seems a more reasonable alternative.

There is no more belligerence on this end. Both these sociopaths are on my ignore list now.

In fact, the OP actually stated that he said he had already run it by his GM and said he'd play another character if it was too much of a hassle, but only after he took offense and started firing shots. I still agree with Kael that it's just an obnoxious thing to do to choose one of the few species that doesn't fit well in a fighter cockpit after the GM tells you its starfighter centered game.

Right the sociopaths are the ones wondering why you are so aggresive and rude...

"hey guys, I am playing a character I am invested in and which seems like fun but might be tad difficult. I discussed it with my GM and he thinks it fine but I could use some pointers."

"YOU RUIN GAMES! BAD FUN! You are a terrible player, a disruptive presence and hate your GM! That character choice was always a bad idea but you are taking it too far! My games are awesome so I should know!"

Yeah, the others here that asked you to be less beligerent those guys are the sociopaths....

Right the sociopaths are the ones wondering why you are so aggresive and rude...

"hey guys, I am playing a character I am invested in and which seems like fun but might be tad difficult. I discussed it with my GM and he thinks it fine but I could use some pointers."

"YOU RUIN GAMES! BAD FUN! You are a terrible player, a disruptive presence and hate your GM! That character choice was always a bad idea but you are taking it too far! My games are awesome so I should know!"

Yeah, the others here that asked you to be less beligerent those guys are the sociopaths....

You're right. With anger control issues like this, you're clearly psychotic, not sociopathic. Thank you for showing me you have nothing but bile to post and putting you on ignore was clearly the right choice.

It's also come to my attention that a lot of players don't know that the Hutts are outlined as a PC class in the Lords of Nal Hutta book. The Hutt NPC's all have 6's and 5's for attributes, along with the Awkward and Ponderous traits. PC Hutts still have Ponderous (which limits them to a single movement manuever per turn), but otherwise they are nothing like the NPC Hutts. They have reasonable stats (312232) and 80 xp to work with.

Hutt have conquered a big part of the galaxy and are one of the most powerful and cunning specie. I highly doubt they dont have engineers capable of building starships for their own species.

Thank goodness there are people to tell folks when they're wrong on the internet, otherwise they would never know!

Whew, I'm late to the game on this one. And I'm glad.

I thought I would throw in my own 2 credits worth of opinion that really doesn't matter much, but I'm going to give it anyway. As the GM I would certainly rule that Hutts can't do a lot of what bipedal beings can do. I also rule that Herglics need special equipment and ships.

How I would adjudicate this situation.

"Ok guys I would like to run a game where you are y-wing pilots."

"Oh, I want to play a Hutt"

"Hmm, sorry, but no, I don't feel like trying to do a space star fighter game with a Hutt pilot, how about something a little more reasonable?"

Either I would get, ok, cool, or the no, I really want to play a Hutt Starfighter jockey. If I got the first option I would say great, if I got the second option I would be well, you can play a different species more in line with what I want to run, or not play at all. I would then suggest that after the Starfighter game was over, we could work on a game where a Hutt would be more acceptable. As a GM, I would not enjoy trying to run a Hutt in a Starfighter game. Some of you out there may love the idea, and that is cool, but I don't.

I am getting ready to run a mafia heavy style game and I was shocked no one asked about being a Hutt. I'm am kind of glad, because I don't really don't like the idea of Hutts being a player character species. The GM and the players need to work together to create a game where everywhere will have fun. If the GM has to make accommodations they don't like, it will make the game suffer in the long run.

If your GM has no problem with this, I would just hand wave a lot of the Hutt trying to fit into the Starfighter and just say it was modified for him/her/it.

Just as a note, I'm not saying anyone is wrong here, or saying anyone's opinions are wrong. It is my opinion that I don't like Hutts as playable characters. I'm just sharing my opinion, and as always, what you guys do out there is totally up to you, as it has no bearing on me or my game.