I think GM could tell "between lines" to players. How it makes them feel uneasy when they do something. Or something along those lines. Give them a bit of a tip of what their character is doing might be harmful for their future.

Put it in between lines and it'll be something that adds to the entire experience. And when they are in the darkside, they might not feel that bad about it anymore, because they are numb to how things go.

I take the middle ground of telling them an action will generate Conflict, but not giving them the exact amount--I keep track of that myself behind the screen. At the end they roll against Morality as normal and I tell them how much their score changes, and then I encourage them to narrate their character's internal feelings to reflect the shift.

The rules are actually quite specific that you should inform players that their action will generate conflict, but do not need to say how much it will generate.

Generally, Having seen how the dice results work, generating a few points of conflict is never really a "bad" thing.

I know it's not necessarily "bad", but my group loves to venture outside the rules (as 1st time F&D players) and bestow conflict for killing enemies, which was fine, but to anyone who wanted to at least try avoiding conflict it made it extremely difficult especially when killing enemies was the ONLY option

I agree entirely. Being a Jedi, or light-sider, should never be easy; and if the Jedi of the galaxy never had a disembodied voice warning them that they're about to do something questionable, then why should the PCs?

I don't know... because the players haven't had 20+ years of training and thought?

The more a player would argue, the more conflict the character should get because obviously it's a hot button for them, hehe.

My Jedi tried to get conflict recently by lightsabering innocents who were forced into attacking the party by a dark side force user...I just kept missing my attack rolls. (Three times? Against clumsy force zombies? Now I'm wondering if I should get strain for being incompetent ! )

The rules are actually quite specific that you should inform players that their action will generate conflict, but do not need to say how much it will generate.

Generally, Having seen how the dice results work, generating a few points of conflict is never really a "bad" thing.

I know it's not necessarily "bad", but my group loves to venture outside the rules (as 1st time F&D players) and bestow conflict for killing enemies, which was fine, but to anyone who wanted to at least try avoiding conflict it made it extremely difficult especially when killing enemies was the ONLY option

Conflict should only be bestowed if an alternative wasn't available or there had been attempt to reach another compromise. Personally my opinion is always to play the game by the rules before editing it as it's akin to running before one learnt how to walk.

That being said, the amount of conflict earned wouldn't amount to a sleepless night, sometimes people won't back down from confrontation.

I don't know... because the players haven't had 20+ years of training and thought?

The more a player would argue, the more conflict the character should get because obviously it's a hot button for them, hehe.

My Jedi tried to get conflict recently by lightsabering innocents who were forced into attacking the party by a dark side force user...I just kept missing my attack rolls. (Three times? Against clumsy force zombies? Now I'm wondering if I should get strain for being incompetent ! )

Your moral conscience clearly got the better of you. lol

I agree entirely. Being a Jedi, or light-sider, should never be easy; and if the Jedi of the galaxy never had a disembodied voice warning them that they're about to do something questionable, then why should the PCs?

I don't know... because the players haven't had 20+ years of training and thought?

The more a player would argue, the more conflict the character should get because obviously it's a hot button for them, hehe.

My Jedi tried to get conflict recently by lightsabering innocents who were forced into attacking the party by a dark side force user...I just kept missing my attack rolls. (Three times? Against clumsy force zombies? Now I'm wondering if I should get strain for being incompetent ! )

They don't need 20+ years of training and thought though because the consequences aren't the same and they're viewing the whole thing from an outside perspective.

Ie yes in real life a person might need more time and thought to consider if say killing that imperial operative who's about to happen upon rebels trying to escort prisoners to safety is the right call or not because it could heavily impact their life. In a game though they don't, they don't need to deal with the real ramifications of taking a life, they have more than a split second to consider it and think it out, etc.

This is why I side with the poster you quoted, telling players "this is what happens if you do this" seems only to make the player play where they want their character to be instead of what they want their character to be. Ie if you "want" your character to be good, I think it should be because you make good moral decisions not because every time you decided to do something big brother was over you going "nah ah ah, watch out or you'll get conflict".

Besides it's not as if the conflict rules are incredibly complex, you shouldn't have to tell your players more than once "don't do anything a lawful stupid paladin wouldn't, ie no killing without neccessity, don't steal, don't lie for only superficial personal gain, etc". Most conflict gains aren't deep hard to consider things, the rules are fairly straight forwards a method of moral good vs moral bad with some personal gain.

As for your situation if you had the ability to take them down non-violently without to much risk to the party or other innocents I'd still give conflict after all in terms of morality the "attempt" to purposely kill those you don't need to is more important than whether you succeed or not.

I agree entirely. Being a Jedi, or light-sider, should never be easy; and if the Jedi of the galaxy never had a disembodied voice warning them that they're about to do something questionable, then why should the PCs?

I don't know... because the players haven't had 20+ years of training and thought?

The more a player would argue, the more conflict the character should get because obviously it's a hot button for them, hehe.

My Jedi tried to get conflict recently by lightsabering innocents who were forced into attacking the party by a dark side force user...I just kept missing my attack rolls. (Three times? Against clumsy force zombies? Now I'm wondering if I should get strain for being incompetent ! )

As for your situation if you had the ability to take them down non-violently without to much risk to the party or other innocents I'd still give conflict after all in terms of morality the "attempt" to purposely kill those you don't need to is more important than whether you succeed or not.

We were speeding down a road in space truck thing and storm troopers were chasing us on speeders. They were shooting at us. Anything we did to them would knock them off their speeders killing them in the aftermath (they were going 60+) so iow we could not avoid killing them, but we still got conflict

I agree entirely. Being a Jedi, or light-sider, should never be easy; and if the Jedi of the galaxy never had a disembodied voice warning them that they're about to do something questionable, then why should the PCs?

I don't know... because the players haven't had 20+ years of training and thought?

The more a player would argue, the more conflict the character should get because obviously it's a hot button for them, hehe.

My Jedi tried to get conflict recently by lightsabering innocents who were forced into attacking the party by a dark side force user...I just kept missing my attack rolls. (Three times? Against clumsy force zombies? Now I'm wondering if I should get strain for being incompetent ! )

As for your situation if you had the ability to take them down non-violently without to much risk to the party or other innocents I'd still give conflict after all in terms of morality the "attempt" to purposely kill those you don't need to is more important than whether you succeed or not.

We were speeding down a road in space truck thing and storm troopers were chasing us on speeders. They were shooting at us. Anything we did to them would knock them off their speeders killing them in the aftermath (they were going 60+) so iow we could not avoid killing them, but we still got conflict

I agree entirely. Being a Jedi, or light-sider, should never be easy; and if the Jedi of the galaxy never had a disembodied voice warning them that they're about to do something questionable, then why should the PCs?

I don't know... because the players haven't had 20+ years of training and thought?

The more a player would argue, the more conflict the character should get because obviously it's a hot button for them, hehe.

My Jedi tried to get conflict recently by lightsabering innocents who were forced into attacking the party by a dark side force user...I just kept missing my attack rolls. (Three times? Against clumsy force zombies? Now I'm wondering if I should get strain for being incompetent ! )

As for your situation if you had the ability to take them down non-violently without to much risk to the party or other innocents I'd still give conflict after all in terms of morality the "attempt" to purposely kill those you don't need to is more important than whether you succeed or not.

We were speeding down a road in space truck thing and storm troopers were chasing us on speeders. They were shooting at us. Anything we did to them would knock them off their speeders killing them in the aftermath (they were going 60+) so iow we could not avoid killing them, but we still got conflict

Odd in that situation I wouldn't give the conflict because you're left with no other choice since its both self defense and not resolvable through any reasonable alternative methods.

Yup my GM wants to make it super difficult to become lightside paragon. Him and everyone else think you as a person would be conflicted by killing someone so therefore, conflict. Speaking of which can someone explain what "conflict" represents in game.

I agree entirely. Being a Jedi, or light-sider, should never be easy; and if the Jedi of the galaxy never had a disembodied voice warning them that they're about to do something questionable, then why should the PCs?

I don't know... because the players haven't had 20+ years of training and thought?

The more a player would argue, the more conflict the character should get because obviously it's a hot button for them, hehe.

My Jedi tried to get conflict recently by lightsabering innocents who were forced into attacking the party by a dark side force user...I just kept missing my attack rolls. (Three times? Against clumsy force zombies? Now I'm wondering if I should get strain for being incompetent ! )

As for your situation if you had the ability to take them down non-violently without to much risk to the party or other innocents I'd still give conflict after all in terms of morality the "attempt" to purposely kill those you don't need to is more important than whether you succeed or not.

We were speeding down a road in space truck thing and storm troopers were chasing us on speeders. They were shooting at us. Anything we did to them would knock them off their speeders killing them in the aftermath (they were going 60+) so iow we could not avoid killing them, but we still got conflict

Odd in that situation I wouldn't give the conflict because you're left with no other choice since its both self defense and not resolvable through any reasonable alternative methods.

Yup my GM wants to make it super difficult to become lightside paragon. Him and everyone else think you as a person would be conflicted by killing someone so therefore, conflict. Speaking of which can someone explain what "conflict" represents in game.

Other examples are like lying for personal gain is worthy of conflict but lying to help others in need is not necessarily.

I agree entirely. Being a Jedi, or light-sider, should never be easy; and if the Jedi of the galaxy never had a disembodied voice warning them that they're about to do something questionable, then why should the PCs?

I don't know... because the players haven't had 20+ years of training and thought?

The more a player would argue, the more conflict the character should get because obviously it's a hot button for them, hehe.

My Jedi tried to get conflict recently by lightsabering innocents who were forced into attacking the party by a dark side force user...I just kept missing my attack rolls. (Three times? Against clumsy force zombies? Now I'm wondering if I should get strain for being incompetent ! )

As for your situation if you had the ability to take them down non-violently without to much risk to the party or other innocents I'd still give conflict after all in terms of morality the "attempt" to purposely kill those you don't need to is more important than whether you succeed or not.

We were speeding down a road in space truck thing and storm troopers were chasing us on speeders. They were shooting at us. Anything we did to them would knock them off their speeders killing them in the aftermath (they were going 60+) so iow we could not avoid killing them, but we still got conflict

Odd in that situation I wouldn't give the conflict because you're left with no other choice since its both self defense and not resolvable through any reasonable alternative methods.

Yup my GM wants to make it super difficult to become lightside paragon. Him and everyone else think you as a person would be conflicted by killing someone so therefore, conflict. Speaking of which can someone explain what "conflict" represents in game.

Its your struggle with the light side and the dark basically. So effectively just killing someone shouldn't innately give conflict if you couldn't solve it diplomatically or they posed immensity threat to others nearby, however attacking another person first without attempting to reason with them or if they don't pose an immediate unavoidable threat should result in some conflict as you took the easy path (i.e. The dark side). Thus it's not to say the light side doesn't let you kill but rather that it shouldn't be your go to in the majority of situations.

Other examples are like lying for personal gain is worthy of conflict but lying to help others in need is not necessarily.

I guess technically speaking we coulda avoided the fight

we were in a hanger of some sorts and had a space truck thing waiting for us. we were told to go to a nearby city and visit someone and BY THE LOOKS OF IT time was of the essence so we bolted and sped out the doorway. Stormtroopers noticed us and chased. we technically could have waited till they left, but ya know... time

Thoughts...?

I guess technically speaking we coulda avoided the fight

we were in a hanger of some sorts and had a space truck thing waiting for us. we were told to go to a nearby city and visit someone and BY THE LOOKS OF IT time was of the essence so we bolted and sped out the doorway. Stormtroopers noticed us and chased. we technically could have waited till they left, but ya know... time

Thoughts...?

It's really hard to second guess another GM without actually talking to that GM. Without knowing their logic and how they reason and come to believe how the Force works one really can't say if this one instance is deserving of Conflict. At best we can just say whether we'd would have awarded Conflict if we were GMing that scene. But that doesn't invalidate your GM's call because it's his game and if he wants to have a stricter view on morality in Star Wars than I do then it's ok.

There are grounds for him to award Conflict in that situation. If the GM feels that the PC's behavior was careless and needlessly endangered not only themselves but others because they just barreled out without waiting to make sure that the Stormtroopers were gone then .... i can see logic in giving Conflict.

But the best you're going to get from us is whether or not we'd would have awarded Conflict. Which in no way says your GM shouldn't have.

I do a combination of telling my players they will earn conflict (but not how much) and not telling them. Generally wherever it's appropriate. If it's a high octane scene and the fact that they are going to get conflict is readily apparent, then no I won't break narrative to tell them... we would just discuss it at the end of the encounter.

Now if it's not going to break narrative or I think there's any ambiguity on the subject, then I would warn them and have the conflict discussion right there.

On that note with my games I will always hear out someone's argument on what they think the conflict assigned should be.. but I don't linger on it. I have, at times, realized later I was wrong, but it's too easy to get mired in the nitty gritty and have it detract from game. I might mention it later, so folks don't have incorrect expectations, but I don't remove or add conflict once the session is formally over. I figure it balances out in the long run and a few points here or there don't matter.

How do you folks handle PC input on conflict decisions?

ghost warlock,

I can understand the paranoia where it relates to the older Star Wars RPG (especially D6) where earning a DSP is a major deal.

But Conflict in this system isn't nearly as much of a punishment, provided the player doesn't go into outright villainy. In fact, the entire Morality system was designed with the notion that PCs would be earning at least some amount of Conflict every session, and that with an average result on the d10 roll, their Morality was more likely to go up slightly than to go down. It's been noted in multiple threads that if you want to play a dark sider, you either need to start with a 29 Morality or you have to go to nearly cartoonish levels of evil in order to fall. As long as the PC doesn't do anything too blatantly evil or destructive, they shouldn't have to worry too much. In short, if the act something that would get you into serious trouble with the law were you to be caught doing it, then it's probably going to be worth some Conflict.

The chart in the book has some pretty helpful guidelines about what actions would generate Conflict and how much. If anything, I might suggest that new players have this chart available to them, with the fully explained caveat that said chart are only suggestions on how much Conflict to award for a given action, and the GM is at full liberty to assign Conflict for actions that aren't specifically covered on the chart.

Ah... D6 Star Wars. I really like that system (many of the force powers aside...), but you could not play prequel era Jedi with it. Did it beat you with the Dark Side stick hard (except if using your lightsaber... slicing people with lightsabers is all fine).

My issue with the Conflict system is that it is pretty much a train to the light side unless 1) your players are reprehensible bastards or 2) the GM really hammers the conflict button hard (ok, also if you try to use powerful force abilities all the time and have to have them succeed). Our group has switched to rolling at significant points (end of adventures, after a notable passage of time etc) rather than every session, as unless the GM goes out of his way to throw morality questions in every session, or you make a point of being pointlessly unpleasant most sessions you will have a small, if not non-existent, amount of conflict. Yes, some sessions, with lots of key conflicts or morality choices, give a chance of building a notable number, but on the quieter, less crucial, sessions you become more light side for going shopping, or investigating the gossip in the local cantina, rather than for actually making the right choice in anything.

I want moral choices and the conflict of the morality system, but I feel it should be more about how you behave at key moments, rather than artificially forcing moral conflict on the players at all times to make the system work as designed.

I don't know, maybe it is just the groups I play with, but they seem to tend to as a base line to do the right, or at least the neutral, thing, and it would take notable stakes to make a question into a moral dilemma, and it isn't always possible to generate significant stakes. Looking at the demo mission in the beta,. for example, there is all sorts of possible conflict to be gained for stealing equipment, I think blackmailing people etc... which it didn't even cross my players minds to do. It was x amount of money, do we have x, yes, we'll buy it.

I think GM could tell "between lines" to players. How it makes them feel uneasy when they do something. Or something along those lines. Give them a bit of a tip of what their character is doing might be harmful for their future.

Put it in between lines and it'll be something that adds to the entire experience. And when they are in the darkside, they might not feel that bad about it anymore, because they are numb to how things go.

I really like this answer. I prefer to break the narrative as little as possible. For example, in the CRB adventure module there is a scenario in which the PCs witness a crime happening. If they do nothing, they get conflict points. If I didn't think my players understood that, I might throw in a line about one of the PCs feeling a disturbance, or something like that.

I guess technically speaking we coulda avoided the fight we were in a hanger of some sorts and had a space truck thing waiting for us. we were told to go to a nearby city and visit someone and BY THE LOOKS OF IT time was of the essence so we bolted and sped out the doorway. Stormtroopers noticed us and chased. we technically could have waited till they left, but ya know... time

Thoughts...?

If you knew the storm troopers where there and that they would recognize you initiating a trace then I "might" give conflict for that particular choice but not the kill that followed.

Basically the kill sounds like it was in self defense, but choosing to take the reckless action by rushing out (again depends on what foreknowledge you had in character) could trigger a conflict gain do to the danger you'd know it put bystanders in.

As someone else said, there are enough disagreements on what actions are conflict-worthy to show that people aren't necessarily on the same page despite Star Wars' black-and-white morality. I like the rule to notify prior to conflict as a default rule because it enables groups to get a bead on what prompts conflict before a player suddenly finds themselves plummeting to the dark side because the GM holds them responsible for all the innocent contractors on that unfinished Death Star. It is an easy thing to house rule away once the group reaches an understanding about how the morality of Star Wars plays out at that particular table.

I guess technically speaking we coulda avoided the fight we were in a hanger of some sorts and had a space truck thing waiting for us. we were told to go to a nearby city and visit someone and BY THE LOOKS OF IT time was of the essence so we bolted and sped out the doorway. Stormtroopers noticed us and chased. we technically could have waited till they left, but ya know... time

Thoughts...?

If you knew the storm troopers where there and that they would recognize you initiating a trace then I "might" give conflict for that particular choice but not the kill that followed.

to be fair time was of the essence

Also we stopped the previous session right before we were gonna leave so we kinda just forgot that the stormtroopers were there

As someone else said, there are enough disagreements on what actions are conflict-worthy to show that people aren't necessarily on the same page despite Star Wars' black-and-white morality. I like the rule to notify prior to conflict as a default rule because it enables groups to get a bead on what prompts conflict before a player suddenly finds themselves plummeting to the dark side because the GM holds them responsible for all the innocent contractors on that unfinished Death Star. It is an easy thing to house rule away once the group reaches an understanding about how the morality of Star Wars plays out at that particular table.

Ik theoretically by their logic Luke should be the grandmaster sith lord with like -50,000 morality by the end of A New Hope

Also i never liked the whole black and white morality thing is it true that thats how Lucas originally planned it to be?

As someone else said, there are enough disagreements on what actions are conflict-worthy to show that people aren't necessarily on the same page despite Star Wars' black-and-white morality. I like the rule to notify prior to conflict as a default rule because it enables groups to get a bead on what prompts conflict before a player suddenly finds themselves plummeting to the dark side because the GM holds them responsible for all the innocent contractors on that unfinished Death Star. It is an easy thing to house rule away once the group reaches an understanding about how the morality of Star Wars plays out at that particular table.

Ik theoretically by their logic Luke should be the grandmaster sith lord with like -50,000 morality by the end of A New Hope

Well Supreme Murderhobo Luke killed 1.7 million people on the Death Star, so at the Conflict rating of 10 points for each murder his Morality rating would be at -17 million.

How do you folks handle PC input on conflict decisions?

They bash at me for complaining and rules lawyering then usually say something to refer to the star wars lore, at least one of the non GM's does

As someone else said, there are enough disagreements on what actions are conflict-worthy to show that people aren't necessarily on the same page despite Star Wars' black-and-white morality. I like the rule to notify prior to conflict as a default rule because it enables groups to get a bead on what prompts conflict before a player suddenly finds themselves plummeting to the dark side because the GM holds them responsible for all the innocent contractors on that unfinished Death Star. It is an easy thing to house rule away once the group reaches an understanding about how the morality of Star Wars plays out at that particular table.

Ik theoretically by their logic Luke should be the grandmaster sith lord with like -50,000 morality by the end of A New Hope

Well Supreme Murderhobo Luke killed 1.7 million people on the Death Star, so at the Conflict rating of 10 points for each murder his Morality rating would be at -17 million.

ok even more than i thought

How do you folks handle PC input on conflict decisions?

They bash at me for complaining and rules lawyering then usually say something to refer to the star wars lore, at least one of the non GM's does

Rules lawyering, min/maxing, and power gaming are not behaviours conducive to a fun experience for everyone. It's better to just go with the flow and remember GM Rule 0. Rule 0 states that the GM is the final arbiter of all rulings and interpretations. This also means that he also can cite lore to base his decisions. If you disagree with it then ask the GM for a meeting with all the players to discuss ground rules. Everyone should have input.

I have in multiple occasions removed rules lawyers, min/maxers, and power gamers from my games as a GM. Their behaviour inhibits the other players' enjoyment as well as my own. I didn't remove them without warning, but I had a talk with them and told them what behaviour I expected from them. This is coming from a player and GM with 32 years of experience in PnP RPGs. Yes, I was once all three of those disruptive behaviours and grew out of them because my actions had a detrimental effect on the game.

My final word of advice is that the fun isn't in rules lawyering, min/maxing, or power gaming. The fun is sitting around a table with like minded individuals and enjoying the story that we face together.

Of course, those same people had wiped an entire planet off the map to make "a point", and generally ruled the galaxy with a iron fist. The force took exception to such a disruptive group of people being wiped out evidently.

Circumstances is everything. By merely being on that station they had become a thrall of the darkside and thus disposable to the force in the simpliest possible simplification; they had to die to stop the station from firing again.

How do you folks handle PC input on conflict decisions?

They bash at me for complaining and rules lawyering then usually say something to refer to the star wars lore, at least one of the non GM's does

My final word of advice is that the fun isn't in rules lawyering, min/maxing, or power gaming. The fun is sitting around a table with like minded individuals and enjoying the story that we face together.

I didnt buy the book just cause it looked cool. The base rules are there for a reason I only rules lawyer because some of my players misinterpret A LOT of the abilities and the GM doesnt realize. Then they say "put down the book man this is suppose to be fun" agreed, but that doesnt mean you can just break the rules willy nilly ven if its not on purpose "GM final say" fair enough but if the GM doesnt know the rules hes trying to follow it's an issue like then whats the point of even spending exp to further your character if we can just break the rules and do something we shouldnt be able to

I dont rules lawyer to be annoying I do it cuz some of them, if not all, dont remember or misinterpret the rules so I step in to make sure they're not cheating by accident so the game is fair for everyone

Fairness = Fun