I'm an old hand at running EotE, but my, oh so soon, upcoming F&D game has me nervous.

It was recently pointed out to me (on these forums) that unless stated specifically otherwise, force powers and their upgrades can be activated multiple times. I've done some extra reading since and there are of course caveats to this; you can't take more then one action, so of course you can't throw an object w Move twice, tho if you have all 4 of the str upgrades and get a mere 3 force pips you can lift a Victory Class Star Destroyer out of the swamps of Dagobah (take that Luke).

As game launch day has approached I've got a pile of NPC stats and plans and schemes. With this new information I'm going back and retooling some of their stats just a little.

As I'm looking at it now, a non force user has a lot of potential to be far more powerful early on, but by mid game (500-800 exp) a force user is quickly going to catch up, by the time he's at 1000 xp, he could have 3 force dice and several powerful upgrades. As I'm seeing it, a force user is going to put a lot of non force users to shame (I think I will have 2 "mundies" in this game).

In a normal game one of the things to keep the force users "in check" is the ever present threat of the Empire, forcing the F&D characters to keep their force ability a secret and allowing them to have the occasional breakout moment to look really awesome.

I'm running my own bastardized version of the Darkstryder Campaign.. think Voyager/Battlestar Galactica/Lost in Space. My PCs will be on a Rebel ship, mostly out of reach of the Empire, in wild/unknown space.. meeting strange new species and encountering strange new places.

Granted I have some plots along the lines of, "pretend to be regular old spacers on this planet cause the locals don't trust force witchcraft and the ship needs you to get more supplies" but there's going to be a lot of scenarios where the force players will have little consequences for unloading their repitore of destruction.

Since this gamechanging rule realization, I'm already tinkering with some of my encounters and have a few ideas on what I might be able to do, to keep my non force users from being mere muggles, in a world of Harry Potter's (okay not the greatest analogy, but it's before coffeeAM). I've never ran a force heavy game and am hoping for insight from any of you folks.. thanks for taking the time to read my long rambly post and any help you can give.

Getting a grasp on what actions are worthy of Conflict will be important.

1. Dragging a light freighter down out of the sky to catch some evil-doers, not so bad.

2. Lifting a murderer, caught in the act who is now trying to kill you too, up to 200ft and dropping them is quite bad.

3. Lifting a squad of local police up to 200ft and letting go just because they may cause some complications, that's bad, that's really bad.

4. Using the side of a building to create a barricade to stop a thief is overly destructive and bad.

5. Using the side of a building to bring down a rampaging Rancor is probably fine.

But I haven't even given a number to the conflict you could award for each situation, it's left up to the GM and Players to decide what's an Evil act and how evil that act is. The book has guidelines, and they fit my needs well, but I suggest that part of your first session with the group should be going over everyone's expectations.

Then it's up to you to try and bring some moral choices into the sessions to 'Test' your Force Users. Possibly that Light Freighter is hard for them to handle and they are going to have to use Dark Side pips. Perhaps the beast (not necessarily a Rancor) is normally placid, and its mistreatment has provoked its rampage. Or the good old 'to save the innocent you must let the villain escape'

The second example, as an act of self-defense, is "quite bad"?

Maybe it depends on whether you have the means to restrain them safely if you bring them down gently?

The second example, as an act of self-defense, is "quite bad"?

Maybe it depends on whether you have the means to restrain them safely if you bring them down gently?

Involves creating a lot of terror needlessly. You could just slam them into the ground or wall and deal with the problem. Lifing someone 200 feet into the air and dropping them is cruel.

2. Lifting a murderer, caught in the act who is now trying to kill you too, up to 200ft and dropping them is quite bad.

How is that different from drawing your saber and putting them down in self-defense.

Its melodramatic, but lethal force is lethal force. In the end, the outcome is exactly the same.

I regard employing lethal force is self-defense, at most, as "regrettable."

Bad form? Certainly! Bad morality? Hardly! Self-defense is self-defense.

The second example, as an act of self-defense, is "quite bad"?

Maybe it depends on whether you have the means to restrain them safely if you bring them down gently?

Involves creating a lot of terror needlessly. You could just slam them into the ground or wall and deal with the problem. Lifing someone 200 feet into the air and dropping them is cruel.

Yeah thats where i was trying to go with it, its cruel. Lifting them up to just defuse the situation, then lowering them down when authorities arrive to apprehend them is a much better moral choice. Dropping them to their death is needless, vindictive, cruel and if you do instead catch them just before they hit the ground its Torture.

I was trying to highlight that different elements of the same situation lead to different moral choices with varying levels of personal Conflict due to the actions.

Personally I don't find tossing a guy who just shoved his sith war sword through my guts 200 feet into the air and into the side of a mountain to be petty. Especially when he gets back up....

Like i said, every situation is different, and every table will have slightly different interpretations. Thats where the Conflict table is a good guideline, but not a Code...

2. Lifting a murderer, caught in the act who is now trying to kill you too, up to 200ft and dropping them is quite bad.

How is that different from drawing your saber and putting them down in self-defense.

Its melodramatic, but lethal force is lethal force. In the end, the outcome is exactly the same.

I regard employing lethal force is self-defense, at most, as "regrettable."

Bad form? Certainly! Bad morality? Hardly! Self-defense is self-defense.

There is a difference between killing in self defense and deliberately making sure they die in terror. cutting someone down with a lightsaber is just dealing with the problem. Throwing them 200 feet into the air to fall to their death is cruel.

Personally I don't find tossing a guy who just shoved his sith war sword through my guts 200 feet into the air and into the side of a mountain to be petty. Especially when he gets back up....

If the situation requires escalating the amount of force used then there should be no conflict for it.

Dropping them to their death is needless, vindictive, cruel and if you do instead catch them just before they hit the ground its Torture.

Well, maybe. But given that "The death of the bad guy involves a long fall" is a Star Wars cliche...

Getting back to the OP for a bit, Conflict is not the only Narrative method of guiding Force Users either.

The world around the PC's should be being affected by their actions. Walking into any Cantina for a drink with a Heavy Repeating Blaster is definitely going to raise eyebrows and more often than not be challenged by the the Owner of the establishment. Well in some places Witchcraft will have exactly the same results. Just because the Empire isn't around doesn't mean local customs, traditions and Laws wont work against the PC's.

Perhaps there Male's who show "Unnatural" powers are offered up to the Gods as a sacrifice.

There are Powerful creatures as well that dampen Force Use, use one as a major obstacle on a particular planet.

Including non Jedi/Sith traditions as antagonists would be very functional as well, their local political clout will be strong. As direct opponents they can be a real challenge too, especially if their signature Force Power is Suppress.

Dropping them to their death is needless, vindictive, cruel and if you do instead catch them just before they hit the ground its Torture.

Well, maybe. But given that "The death of the bad guy involves a long fall" is a Star Wars cliche...

Sure... but usually after they earned that result.

Conflict is going to be a barrier to some degree for most the PCs... but we are actually starting w one dark sider. A PC is going to play a student of my villain who's defecting to the Rebellion in order to take down his old master. Him I'm not worried about tho, I've played a lot of games w him and trust him with this.. plus he's going to basically be on probation w the Rebellion and if he starts throwing around a lotta lightening, it might make the Rebellion not so comfortable with him wandering the ship.

Getting back to the OP for a bit, Conflict is not the only Narrative method of guiding Force Users either.

The world around the PC's should be being affected by their actions. Walking into any Cantina for a drink with a Heavy Repeating Blaster is definitely going to raise eyebrows and more often than not be challenged by the the Owner of the establishment. Well in some places Witchcraft will have exactly the same results. Just because the Empire isn't around doesn't mean local customs, traditions and Laws wont work against the PC's.

Perhaps there Male's who show "Unnatural" powers are offered up to the Gods as a sacrifice.

There are Powerful creatures as well that dampen Force Use, use one as a major obstacle on a particular planet.

Including non Jedi/Sith traditions as antagonists would be very functional as well, their local political clout will be strong. As direct opponents they can be a real challenge too, especially if their signature Force Power is Suppress.

Yes... Actions should have consequences. I could see Morality and Duty and Obligation having an effect on interactions. SOmeone with a low morality may give off a vibe that for some people might make them wary. IE a set back.

A wonderful part of this system is it does a great job of simulating a Dark Side force user hiding amongst "Good" people. not to mention the struggles of Returning to the Light.

..

Yes... Actions should have consequences. I could see Morality and Duty and Obligation having an effect on interactions. SOmeone with a low morality may give off a vibe that for some people might make them wary. IE a set back.

Oh absolutely. this works well between PC's too! Imagine a Marauder who happily bashes heads in, or a compulsive Thief in a party with Light Side Paragon. The preaching that would go on, the setback to the Marauders Coercion checks, or the Thief's skulduggery checks...

Of course thats treading treacherous waters where 1 Player can easily start spoiling all the others enjoyment by "Being in Character". But if everyone can keep together its got a lot of potential.

With great power comes greater responsibility. There is a long running theme in literature in regards to the use of special powers, whether it be magic, mutant abilities, super powers, a special gift, etc etc in ways that are morally higher than their mundane equivalent. So when you have a special and unique gift or power you're supposed to aspire to better behavior with it. If you break it down killing someone with the Force isn't much different than killing some with a lightsabre, true. But storytelling has always recognized that doing that kind of thing was morally bad as people with unique powers were often times held to a higher moral standard. We see this with the use of magic for instance. Magic that harms people is considered black magic. Even though a wizard could harm someone with more mundane powers. The act of being that unique and special means you have to adhere to a higher standard in regards to what you do with that power.

Star Wars very much borrows from those concepts. Star Wars use of the Force very much borrows on the concept that those with special powers mustn't use those powers to destroy. To some extent, yes it doesn't make sense that you can cut someone down with a lightsabre but can't drop a man from 200 ft up but then you're kinda sorta missing the story narrative point that is working here. This isn't an idea unique to Star Wars and we see it very often in a lot of our media that we consume. It's something you kinda sorta have to accept when working in that medium.

Whereas I kinda have to fight the urge to roll my eyes when stories (or society) treat an act differently because of the tool used to carry it out. All that matters is the intent and the outcome. Shot, stabbed, blown up, run over, dropped from 200 feet, cut in half with a science fantasy plasma sword... doesn't matter. Motive and intent matter, and results matter.

Yeah well ...... I mean .... it's Star Wars .... so what do you expect? Lucas was honest about what inspired him when crafting it and so you just have to accept that a game based on those types of stories are going to incorporate mechanics that also reflect that style of storytelling.

If you're the kind of person who cringes when a setting holds people with unique abilities to a higher standard then you may in fact be in the wrong kind of game. This game was made to reflect Star Wars and the fact that it does so shouldn't really be a negative thing that people get irked about.

Im on Kael's side as far as the "This is Star Wars" point of view. Mind you an Alternate Universe game where the strict Moral underpinnings are torn up and re-imagined would be a heck of a lot of fun and could breath a new light on a well used setting. Something along the lines of Morality being a track of your characters Madness, Sanity or Depression.

It's not about the morality or the standards -- it's about actions being treated differently depending on the tools being used to do them.

Killing someone for greed or jealousy is the same no matter which tool is used... killing someone to defend an innocent life is the same no matter which tool is used... and dead is dead, regardless of method.

Whereas I kinda have to fight the urge to roll my eyes when stories (or society) treat an act differently because of the tool used to carry it out. All that matters is the intent and the outcome. Shot, stabbed, blown up, run over, dropped from 200 feet, cut in half with a science fantasy plasma sword... doesn't matter. Motive and intent matter, and results matter.

Whereas I kinda have to fight the urge to roll my eyes when stories (or society) treat an act differently because of the tool used to carry it out. All that matters is the intent and the outcome. Shot, stabbed, blown up, run over, dropped from 200 feet, cut in half with a science fantasy plasma sword... doesn't matter. Motive and intent matter, and results matter.

You seem to keep leaving out the part where it is how the tool is used that matters. Slam a guy in to the nearest wall. No conflict. Throw the guy 200 feet in the air conflict. The second gets you conflict because you are causing unnecessary fear and terror.

Because slamming them into the wall doesn't cause them fear?

It's not about the morality or the standards -- it's about actions being treated differently depending on the tools being used to do them.

Killing someone for greed or jealousy is the same no matter which tool is used... killing someone to defend an innocent life is the same no matter which tool is used... and dead is dead, regardless of method.

And again, the story elements that Star Wars relies on see's a big difference. The tropes that Star Wars relies on (and this game relies on frankly) say that using your powers to dead is dead is more morally wrong. It falls back to Uncle Ben's "with great power comes greater responsibility." It's a feature of the story telling. A really old feature at that.

In stories like Star Wars dead isn't dead. Standards are different. People with powers are held to a different moral code than those who aren't. They are expected to know, do, and be better than their mundane counterpart. It's part of the price they pay for having powers that mark them as unique and special.

If that's not a story element you enjoy, cool. But then you really shouldn't be playing Star Wars, or Force and Destiny in particular since the entire story is built on the idea that while dead is dead, people who have powers have a higher obligation not to use those powers to make people dead.

It's not something everyone can agree with, but it is something that you're signing onto once you decide to play this game.

Different stories rely on different things. Can't really fault Star Wars, and Force and Destiny in particular, for doing what they felt would make a good story.

It's not about the morality or the standards -- it's about actions being treated differently depending on the tools being used to do them.

Killing someone for greed or jealousy is the same no matter which tool is used... killing someone to defend an innocent life is the same no matter which tool is used... and dead is dead, regardless of method.

And again, the story elements that Star Wars relies on see's a big difference. The tropes that Star Wars relies on (and this game relies on frankly) say that using your powers to dead is dead is more morally wrong. It falls back to Uncle Ben's "with great power comes greater responsibility." It's a feature of the story telling. A really old feature at that.

In stories like Star Wars dead isn't dead. Standards are different. People with powers are held to a different moral code than those who aren't. They are expected to know, do, and be better than their mundane counterpart. It's part of the price they pay for having powers that mark them as unique and special.

If that's not a story element you enjoy, cool. But then you really shouldn't be playing Star Wars, or Force and Destiny in particular since the entire story is built on the idea that while dead is dead, people who have powers have a higher obligation not to use those powers to make people dead.

It's not something everyone can agree with, but it is something that you're signing onto once you decide to play this game.

Different stories rely on different things. Can't really fault Star Wars, and Force and Destiny in particular, for doing what they felt would make a good story.

So if the same person uses a blaster to kill someone, or a lightsaber, or "Force-pushes" them off a cliff... for the same reason, and with the same result... that's different somehow?