Why not just give him what he wants the 150exp and lightsaber and let him join the game after the first 3 sessions it's not like your hurting on player's?

I ended up talking to him about this and he is saying he will conform and doesn't want to argue about it anymore. I have a feeling that this will come out when he is playing, because when things have gone badly for his character in the past he would usually tend to stop roleplaying as much and kind of dismiss himself from what the group is doing (go hide in the ship to "scan the area" for 30 minutes).

Okay, it sounds like you have a deeper problem than this one instance, that this bratty behavior runs deep. I am a huge advocate of "Something wrong? Talk to your players". Get him aside and tell him frankly - but not hostile - that his attitude is being disruptive and that it's messing things up for the group. That you are ALL there to have a good time, not just him. Tell him that you'll work with him to tell whatever story he wants, but if that sh' keeps up, he is not welcome,"

The hard part is doing this so that there are no real life hard feelings. So be very sure to explain how his actions are making it very frustrating for you to do your job. Be clear that you don't want to do this, that you value him as a friend (assuming you do, of course) but it's for the good of all.

I ended up talking to him about this and he is saying he will conform and doesn't want to argue about it anymore. I have a feeling that this will come out when he is playing, because when things have gone badly for his character in the past he would usually tend to stop roleplaying as much and kind of dismiss himself from what the group is doing (go hide in the ship to "scan the area" for 30 minutes).

Okay, it sounds like you have a deeper problem than this one instance, that this bratty behavior runs deep. I am a huge advocate of "Something wrong? Talk to your players". Get him aside and tell him frankly - but not hostile - that his attitude is being disruptive and that it's messing things up for the group. That you are ALL there to have a good time, not just him. Tell him that you'll work with him to tell whatever story he wants, but if that sh' keeps up, he is not welcome,"

The hard part is doing this so that there are no real life hard feelings. So be very sure to explain how his actions are making it very frustrating for you to do your job. Be clear that you don't want to do this, that you value him as a friend (assuming you do, of course) but it's for the good of all.

I had a longer and more in depth conversation with this person about a week after I had the first one I mentioned above. We ended up going into things more and he told me how he felt that I was "out to get him" because he thought that I specifically didn't allow him to make an important decision because he was under the effects of a Jedi mind trick.

He admitted he behaved inappropriately, but even after we talked it out, he was still annoyed with how the mission went and how he felt screwed over even though he learned that my intentions were not to intentionally mess with him. He hasn't decided whether or not he will attend the getaway part of the finale, which I find sad because this is the very end of the campaign from our first ever RPG we have all played together.

Going forward I told him that the group, and sometimes just his PC, will be screwed over at times and he will have to roll with the punches. I also let him know that if he continues to act like that then he will be asked to leave the session, or possibly the campaign, if the situation warrants it.

he told me how he felt that I was "out to get him" because he thought that I specifically didn't allow him to make an important decision because he was under the effects of a Jedi mind trick.

My response? "Am I out to get you if you've taken a crit from a blaster wound? That's just the game mechanics of the engine dictating on how the your character interacts with the universe. Same thing here"

This is, of course predicated on the idea that you are indeed not out to get them.

he was still annoyed with how the mission went and how he felt screwed over even though he learned that my intentions were not to intentionally mess with him.

Sounds like he needs to work on the player buy-in. Sometimes bad things happen to the characters to move the story along, but the players have to have faith that the GM knows what he is doing and the end result will be awesome and epic. What might feel like messing with him (Say, building a game based on the character's background, pushing all his buttons along the way) is just trying to engage him and tell a good story.

The answer is simple; the player ISN'T the character. Just because something detrimental happened to the character, doesn't necessarily mean detrimental to the players.

Now, this might be counter productive to roleplaying by the sounds of things, but it really isn't. Whole one enjoys the success, the game is designed from the ground up to be much like a star wars movie and often bad things happen to the heros to ramp up the drama. In this case, the mindtrick was designed to be just that thing. A thing targeted at his character to create interesting situations.

Interesting situations don't normally happen if the character succeeds all the time. Thus in the same manner as being shot sometimes a character can be beguiled, it can be entertaining, heart racing even, but by the sounds of things he is his character and he can't stand being subject to anything negative.

I have a simliar issue with a wizard in a DnD 5e group. Was a evil character in a good party that wasn't part of the group we were with, yet hung around like a nasty rash, tried to get all the necromancy knowledge he could and buggered around constantly, insulting NPC's and using magic to be a general tool. So I started doing the same back, when he insulted a NPC I told him he wasn't part of our team and he got chucked out, and the next time he tried to fireball the bridge people were trying to cross, I crushed his hands and simply issued a in character threat that I would kill him if he did anything like that again. Made sense, because people could have died from that stunt and as a paladin I took that really seriously, even if I gave a bit of leway before.

Of course he took that really personally but he was ruining my fun, so I ruined his back. Ever since the party started turning against him (because there was frankly little likeable about the way he behaved) he left and sessions were much better without that constant interference. Sometimes people just either have to learn to accomidate the party and the DM to write a tale together, or they are better off not at the table at all.

In the games where I’ve been a player and some nasty stuff has happened to my PCs, it did take a bit of trust between me and the GM to either know that this was just random bad luck, or that this was part of a scenario set up and that everything would turn out okay in the end.

If you don’t have that level of trust between the GM and the players, it can be really hard to do very much at all — especially with those players who “are” the character.

Slightly OT but six players is an awful lot of players. I typically cap my games at 4 players plus GM. Otherwise the risk of player boredom becomes a very real threat with a lack of spotlight time.

That is true, I have only played with 4 players thus far, but now one of my other friends wants to join as well as a coworker of a current player so it's creepin' up. I run our sessions a bit lighter than some probably do, we still joke around a bit and consume copious amounts of alcohol throughout the night, so it's not as hardcore as some. I was debating on asking if people wanted to split it up into 2 campaigns, where I GM one of them and someone else GM's the other but I don't think everyone involved has that kind of availability especially if there were a couple of crossovers...

Again, a Matter of opinion, preference, Gm skill, and group dynamic. This may be true for you but not all.

My Star wars group has 7 players and they have a Great time.

I regularly run for tables(on and offline) of at least 6.

Different strokes for different folks and if you can make it work, great. But I'd be hard pressed to find someone who would recommend the practice.

Online games are also a completely different beast.

Different strokes for different folks and if you can make it work, great. But I'd be hard pressed to find someone who would recommend the practice.

Online games are also a completely different beast.

Erm....yeah, you wouldn't be hard pressed to find a 6 person group. That's pretty common to be honest. 6 is a fine number to run for just as the same as 4 is. 7+ is where you typically start to see issues.

Get rid of that player. Having a player complaining each time he doesnt win is not fun at a RPG table.

Erm....yeah, you wouldn't be hard pressed to find a 6 person group. That's pretty common to be honest. 6 is a fine number to run for just as the same as 4 is. 7+ is where you typically start to see issues.

I think a great deal depends on where you are and the respective personalities involved.

In my experience, the FFG SWRP games usually tend to work best at around three to four players, but you can make do with fewer or more. I have yet to see a game with more than five players, and all the other GMs I’ve talked to in person about this issue down at our FLGS has said that also tends to be about the limit for them.

But maybe for you and your players, six is a good number. That’s great!

I wish that I knew of FFG SWRPGs where six players worked, and where six players were available and interested to play the game. I’d like to see how that dynamic works.

I ended up talking to him about this and he is saying he will conform and doesn't want to argue about it anymore. I have a feeling that this will come out when he is playing, because when things have gone badly for his character in the past he would usually tend to stop roleplaying as much and kind of dismiss himself from what the group is doing (go hide in the ship to "scan the area" for 30 minutes).

Okay, it sounds like you have a deeper problem than this one instance, that this bratty behavior runs deep. I am a huge advocate of "Something wrong? Talk to your players". Get him aside and tell him frankly - but not hostile - that his attitude is being disruptive and that it's messing things up for the group. That you are ALL there to have a good time, not just him. Tell him that you'll work with him to tell whatever story he wants, but if that sh' keeps up, he is not welcome,"

I had a longer and more in depth conversation with this person about a week after I had the first one I mentioned above. We ended up going into things more and he told me how he felt that I was " out to get him" because he thought that I specifically didn't allow him to make an important decision because he was under the effects of a Jedi mind trick.

He admitted he behaved inappropriately, but even after we talked it out, he was still annoyed with how the mission went and how he felt screwed over even though he learned that my intentions were not to intentionally mess with him. He hasn't decided whether or not he will attend the getaway part of the finale, which I find sad because this is the very end of the campaign from our first ever RPG we have all played together.

Going forward I told him that the group, and sometimes just his PC, will be screwed over at times and he will have to roll with the punches. I also let him know that if he continues to act like that then he will be asked to leave the session, or possibly the campaign, if the situation warrants it.

I had a player that went sour like this. He started accusing me of the same thing because (different game system) I wasn't allowing him to train skills for advancement outside of the method allowed by the rules that he felt was Reasonable, and kept arguing with me about such. And then started to accuse me of intentionally screwing over the group in certain encounters with what was Reasonable actions of the NPCs.

(Basics were that they were surrounded by a Group of Elves in a war zone in which Humans had been attacking the elves along with Orcs.... But it was Unreasonable for me to have the elves Demand that they turn over proof of who they were before they were willing to talk to them and not take them prisoner, and Unreasonable for the elves to treat them with mistrust even after the "proof" was given. I was just being a Jerk. This from the Same guy who insisted that Because his Character Had Extremely High Looks and presence, on a female character, Should be able to talk merchants down extremely in price, get free rooms at inns and basically just Charm her way through any situation with out any skill is said attempts in a skill based system )

So, No I don't put up with such.

Remove him from the game because this is an issue that will just repeat further down the road. You'll hurt his feelings, there may be some fallout, but if he's your best mate, then hopefully he'll understand. You just got to let him know why its not working. If he's willing to cool it, then give him one more chance, but if it was me, I'd put him out.

Thankfully I've never had unruly players like that. I've had a couple of rule lawyers, but that's about it. My tolerance for players like that is fairly low, so prob explains why I don't get much problems

I've actually had more issues with GM's than anything else, but I'm not one to kick up a fuss, I'd rather leave a game quietly if I think the GM is going to carry on like this. Typical issue I have is with the GM's who think its ok for a party to get ambushed/kidnapped without any type of skill check or resistance.

No-win situations are fine, IF the players put themselves into that situation, otherwise, it's not fun for the player group. If the GM however puts a player/group into a no-win situation without actually giving them a smidgen of a chance, then I would call that unfair.

In my games, I always like to provide a way-out. But I am equally harsh if the players back themselves into a corner, but that is their doing, not the GM.

The Jedi mindtrick for example that this player is giving out about; did he have a chance to resist? I know lorewise that its unlikely, but, even if you make it a really hard difficult check, then you give the player less ammo to use against you.

I have one person who want's to start as a dark side force user, and the main problem I have with that is his reasoning behind why he wants to. He originally setup his character as having 50 morality, knowing he would probably fall to the dark side and then try to redeem himself as the story progresses. After the group decided to not start at the Knight level, and instead power level through 3 sessions to gain their lightsabers, a mentor, and a base of operations, he decided that he didn't like not having the extra XP that would have been given to him at Knight level so he decided to go dark.

It's reasonable for him to be a little disappointed because he probably planned on how to spend those 150EXP. Things change but I can understand this.

His main reasons for going to the dark side are:

1. Have more wound threshold, and he doesn't want to be a weakling and die right away (he is setup to use Presence as his lightsaber skill, not Brawn, so his wound threshold will be lower than normal)

2. He wants the additional XP to use during the setup of his skills and characteristics

3. He is frustrated that things are going the way he wants them to (even though the group decided to play this way) so he is saying things like, "why should I even have my setup like it is right now at all if I don't have a lightsaber, I might as well just put all my XP into using blasters."

1) I also have a PC that plans to use Presence but I still have no Lightsabre so I haven't bothered to buy the Talent yet, I will when I get one (you should recommend this to him).

If his idea is a redemption story then it can work but this is a difficult thing to do, he really will have to work at it.