This idea of a reliably non-lethal way to shoot someone is nothing more than nonsense perpetuated by pop mythology, Hollywood, and RPGs.

Well, thank goodness we're playing a hard, reality based combat simulation game.

. . . . oh, wait.

Actually if you don't take it in the brain bucket, and make it to a hospital with a heartbeat, statistically you've got a 96% chance of survival.

On the other hand, you can bleed out in mere moments, and not have a heartbeat before anyone even thinks to check. It's not reliable.

Which is why people with a whit of sense don't shoot things that they don't intended to kill or break.

You do in fact need medical intervention quickly, but it doesn't take much to delay the Reaper. Very hard to just switch someone off, gotta hit em more or less center of the face. A round goes through there, that's a light switch.

Player - "I attack him."

GM - "With what?"

Player - "My blaster."

Still not seeing where the GM "stole" the player's "agency". The PC did exactly what the player said, and left the results to fate or chance, whether represented by dice or GM. The result of shooting the NPC was that the NPC died, which is an entirely expectable outcome of shooting someone.

Stepping away from the debate for a moment to get back to the original issue:

1. GM has an NPC insult a player character, most likely expecting insults in return or a fistfight--either one would be an interesting diversion

2. PC's ego is fragile so he decides he's going to pull his blaster, a weapon which we've seen is 99% lethal in Star Wars, and shoot at his attacker

Now at this second point we have the argument that the PC was expecting to get the PokeMon battle music and grid map, where he and Rando Calrissian would engage blaster shots until one of them "fainted".

3. GM clearly was not expecting this and obviously doesn't want to waste time rolling up a pointless combat, so he skips to the logical conclusion where the PC guns down poor Rando in the bar

4. PC cries foul, because he wanted a PokeMon battle where being shot with blasters isn't lethal because ????

But okay, let's entertain this fantasy. Let's say that they engage in this combat encounter, the PC shoots at Rando, and since Rando is most likely a mook (Because why on Earth would he be anything else) he dies in one shot, maybe two from a blaster pistol after subtracting his 2-3 Soak.

GOTO 4, where the PC then insists that he would have been shooting to stun.

GM: "Then you should have %&$#ing said that."

Of course all of this is irrelevant to the point of whether the PC's response was proportionate and reasonable, which the answer is a very solid "holy $#!@ no". In no reality is responding to insults from a nobody in a bar with gunfire a rational decision, regardless of whether he was shooting to wound or kill or stun or whatever. It's the act of someone so unhinged they're liable to fly off the handle if you so much as gave them a dirty look, which is the sort of character I would stat if I wanted my PCs to feel good about killing someone.

I'm honestly pretty floored by the people insisting that this is a completely normal and understandable decision to make, and I must express my sincere desire to never play in any of your games. They sound like Tarantino-esque nightmares.

If a player character shoots someone and is then surprised when they die then they're clearly mentally deranged and should be locked up, not the protagonist of a space adventure. It's basic actions v consequences and I can't believe I have to spell this out; if your response to being insulted by some rando in a bar is to gun them down in cold blood, you aren't the hero. You aren't even an anti-hero. You're the psychotic antagonist.

People ***** about the GM "removing player agency" by not jumping into combat--the hell would accomplish? Would the guy be less dead if he was shot multiple times instead of once?

I also like how that's supposed to be a defense for his actions, as though starting a shootout and endangering the lives of everyone around you is supposed to be a reasonable response to name-calling.

If one considers, for the briefest of moments, that the GM jumped to his conclusion before the player could specify that he's "shooting his blaster" on stun setting, then yes. He'd be substantially less dead. If the player had been given the option to just "wing him" then yes, he'd be less dead. We don't know if the player would have or not, but the point is, that choice was removed from the player's hands. (And before we get into whether or not you can 'wing' someone, there's two things to consider - it's supposed to be a narrative/cinematic game, where that kind of thing happens. Secondly, blasters deal damage by thermal means, not catastrophic impact. Peripheral thermal wounds would probably allow for a greater window of treatment than kinetic ones.)

Plus, let's be fair, two of the iconic heroes in the films set the precedent that killing folks in a bar is a thing that happens. Whether it's something that SHOULD happen in real life is irrelevant, because it surely happens in Star Wars. Dress it up as much as you want, but it's as much a part of the setting as glowsticks and goofy hats.

This is kinda getting out of hand...

Can't we play nice?

Yes and the GM made the choice to not run combat as required and kill the NPC even after he was told that the shot was not lethal. I guess you missed that part. Let me guess you believe that GM's that take over characters and ruling through fiat are okay. I'm certainly glad that I don't game with any of you guys.

"...as required..." is to be determined by the GM. A PC deciding to shoot someone is not always grounds for a combat encounter to begin. Clearly this drunkard dude at the bar was a non-combatant who was easily overpowered by the PC, no combat necessary.

In my own games I only initiate combat if there are possible significant outcomes for either side or if was scripted. I would have done the same as the OP: no combat round, the PC can easily defeat this NPC, no roll necessary. I do the same for some skill checks.

Clearly you missed this post ^

To summarize for you, a PC wanting to shoot someone is not grounds for Structured Time (initiative encounter) to begin.

This is kinda getting out of hand...

Can't we play nice?

I tried for the 'let's make funny scenarios with the random murder', didn't seem to take.

Yes and the GM made the choice to not run combat as required and kill the NPC even after he was told that the shot was not lethal. I guess you missed that part. Let me guess you believe that GM's that take over characters and ruling through fiat are okay. I'm certainly glad that I don't game with any of you guys.

"...as required..." is to be determined by the GM. A PC deciding to shoot someone is not always grounds for a combat encounter to begin. Clearly this drunkard dude at the bar was a non-combatant who was easily overpowered by the PC, no combat necessary.

In my own games I only initiate combat if there are possible significant outcomes for either side or if was scripted. I would have done the same as the OP: no combat round, the PC can easily defeat this NPC, no roll necessary. I do the same for some skill checks.

Clearly you missed this post ^

To summarize for you, a PC wanting to shoot someone is not grounds for Structured Time (initiative encounter) to begin.

I saw it and thank you for pointing out.

If a player character shoots someone and is then surprised when they die then they're clearly mentally deranged and should be locked up, not the protagonist of a space adventure. It's basic actions v consequences and I can't believe I have to spell this out; if your response to being insulted by some rando in a bar is to gun them down in cold blood, you aren't the hero. You aren't even an anti-hero. You're the psychotic antagonist.

People ***** about the GM "removing player agency" by not jumping into combat--the hell would accomplish? Would the guy be less dead if he was shot multiple times instead of once?

I also like how that's supposed to be a defense for his actions, as though starting a shootout and endangering the lives of everyone around you is supposed to be a reasonable response to name-calling.

Plus, let's be fair, two of the iconic heroes in the films set the precedent that killing folks in a bar is a thing that happens. Whether it's something that SHOULD happen in real life is irrelevant, because it surely happens in Star Wars. Dress it up as much as you want, but it's as much a part of the setting as glowsticks and goofy hats.

I must have imagined the bit in A New Hope where Greedo was pointing a blaster at Han's chest from across the table, gloating about how he was about to kill him. I sincerely apologize.

If a player character shoots someone and is then surprised when they die then they're clearly mentally deranged and should be locked up, not the protagonist of a space adventure. It's basic actions v consequences and I can't believe I have to spell this out; if your response to being insulted by some rando in a bar is to gun them down in cold blood, you aren't the hero. You aren't even an anti-hero. You're the psychotic antagonist.

People ***** about the GM "removing player agency" by not jumping into combat--the hell would accomplish? Would the guy be less dead if he was shot multiple times instead of once?

I also like how that's supposed to be a defense for his actions, as though starting a shootout and endangering the lives of everyone around you is supposed to be a reasonable response to name-calling.

Plus, let's be fair, two of the iconic heroes in the films set the precedent that killing folks in a bar is a thing that happens. Whether it's something that SHOULD happen in real life is irrelevant, because it surely happens in Star Wars. Dress it up as much as you want, but it's as much a part of the setting as glowsticks and goofy hats.

I must have imagined the bit in A New Hope where Greedo was pointing a blaster at Han's chest from across the table, gloating about how he was about to kill him. I sincerely apologize.

Well the biggest murderhobo in the OT is Luke Skywalker. He killed all those innocent Death Star workers with two proton torpedos.

Well the biggest murderhobo in the OT is Luke Skywalker. He killed all those innocent Death Star workers with two proton torpedos.

So innocent they were going to blow up a planet...like they already had done once before.

You're not doing your case any favours by tossing out words like "innocent" when it clearly does not apply.

If a player character shoots someone and is then surprised when they die then they're clearly mentally deranged and should be locked up, not the protagonist of a space adventure. It's basic actions v consequences and I can't believe I have to spell this out; if your response to being insulted by some rando in a bar is to gun them down in cold blood, you aren't the hero. You aren't even an anti-hero. You're the psychotic antagonist.

People ***** about the GM "removing player agency" by not jumping into combat--the hell would accomplish? Would the guy be less dead if he was shot multiple times instead of once?

I also like how that's supposed to be a defense for his actions, as though starting a shootout and endangering the lives of everyone around you is supposed to be a reasonable response to name-calling.

Plus, let's be fair, two of the iconic heroes in the films set the precedent that killing folks in a bar is a thing that happens. Whether it's something that SHOULD happen in real life is irrelevant, because it surely happens in Star Wars. Dress it up as much as you want, but it's as much a part of the setting as glowsticks and goofy hats.

I must have imagined the bit in A New Hope where Greedo was pointing a blaster at Han's chest from across the table, gloating about how he was about to kill him. I sincerely apologize.

Well the biggest murderhobo in the OT is Luke Skywalker. He killed all those innocent Death Star workers with two proton torpedos.

Son of a ***** got all the XP too.

To summarize for you, a PC wanting to shoot someone is not grounds for Structured Time (initiative encounter) to begin.

And that's completely true.

But if the player is unfamiliar with this style of play, and he clearly was, then cutting the player off at the knees is probably not the best response either.

That said, as I tried to point out in my first post...the people involved should be less involved with placing blame, and more worried about where they go from here. How you process this kind of thing going forward is far more important than getting caught up in mudslinging.

Stepping away from the debate for a moment to get back to the original issue:

1. GM has an NPC insult a player character, most likely expecting insults in return or a fistfight--either one would be an interesting diversion

2. PC's ego is fragile so he decides he's going to pull his blaster, a weapon which we've seen is 99% lethal in Star Wars, and shoot at his attacker

Now at this second point we have the argument that the PC was expecting to get the PokeMon battle music and grid map, where he and Rando Calrissian would engage blaster shots until one of them "fainted".

3. GM clearly was not expecting this and obviously doesn't want to waste time rolling up a pointless combat, so he skips to the logical conclusion where the PC guns down poor Rando in the bar

4. PC cries foul, because he wanted a PokeMon battle where being shot with blasters isn't lethal because ????

But okay, let's entertain this fantasy. Let's say that they engage in this combat encounter, the PC shoots at Rando, and since Rando is most likely a mook (Because why on Earth would he be anything else) he dies in one shot, maybe two from a blaster pistol after subtracting his 2-3 Soak.

GOTO 4, where the PC then insists that he would have been shooting to stun.

GM: "Then you should have %&$#ing said that."

Ok, alternate scenario, same logic. For sake of argument, let's pretend you like pizza and HATE mushrooms.

Me: "Hey, wanna get lunch?"

You: "Sure. How about pizza?"

Me: "Awesome!" *Orders pepperoni and mushroom pizza*

You: "Hey, I didn't want mushrooms."

Me: "Then you should have %&$#ing said that."

Also, regarding Greedo pointing the blaster at Han - Yes, he was! And what did Han do to him? Nothing! Han was about to get murderhobo'd, he just won Initiative. Either way, some fool was getting killed in a bar. I'd like to state that I was saying that it is something that obviously happens in Star Wars - I was not making any sort of judgement on whether it was justified or not.

I'm realllly trying to not be argumentative, and to that effect I'm going to limit future input to the occasional off-the-cuff joke in this thread, but it doesn't seem like you want to address any counterpoints, and want to treat this like it was a pub down the street in a realistic community, not the type of setting it is.

Han shot first.

Do we have any indication from the players involved in the incident what sort of planet and neighborhood and bar this took place in? I thought we did, but that could have been from the high signal to noise ratio.

Stepping away from the debate for a moment to get back to the original issue:

1. GM has an NPC insult a player character, most likely expecting insults in return or a fistfight--either one would be an interesting diversion

2. PC's ego is fragile so he decides he's going to pull his blaster, a weapon which we've seen is 99% lethal in Star Wars, and shoot at his attacker

Now at this second point we have the argument that the PC was expecting to get the PokeMon battle music and grid map, where he and Rando Calrissian would engage blaster shots until one of them "fainted".

3. GM clearly was not expecting this and obviously doesn't want to waste time rolling up a pointless combat, so he skips to the logical conclusion where the PC guns down poor Rando in the bar

4. PC cries foul, because he wanted a PokeMon battle where being shot with blasters isn't lethal because ????

But okay, let's entertain this fantasy. Let's say that they engage in this combat encounter, the PC shoots at Rando, and since Rando is most likely a mook (Because why on Earth would he be anything else) he dies in one shot, maybe two from a blaster pistol after subtracting his 2-3 Soak.

GOTO 4, where the PC then insists that he would have been shooting to stun.

GM: "Then you should have %&$#ing said that."

Ok, alternate scenario, same logic. For sake of argument, let's pretend you like pizza and HATE mushrooms.

Me: "Hey, wanna get lunch?"

You: "Sure. How about pizza?"

Me: "Awesome!" *Orders pepperoni and mushroom pizza*

You: "Hey, I didn't want mushrooms."

Me: "Then you should have %&$#ing said that."

Also, regarding Greedo pointing the blaster at Han - Yes, he was! And what did Han do to him? Nothing! Han was about to get murderhobo'd, he just won Initiative. Either way, some fool was getting killed in a bar. I'd like to state that I was saying that it is something that obviously happens in Star Wars - I was not making any sort of judgement on whether it was justified or not.

I'm realllly trying to not be argumentative, and to that effect I'm going to limit future input to the occasional off-the-cuff joke in this thread, but it doesn't seem like you want to address any counterpoints, and want to treat this like it was a pub down the street in a realistic community, not the type of setting it is.

Funny how you're not trying to be argumentative while accusing me of doing the exact thing you just did. :V

Saying "oh well Star Wars is a setting where people get gunned down all the time" is only true if you strip out all context of the cantina scene and insert rationality into the OP's example where there is none. From an in-character perspective, the PC murdered a man for grade school name-calling. From an out-of-character perspective, the player was relying on metanarrative mechanics instead of roleplaying his character.

Either way you shake this the fault is not on the GM's end.

Han shot first.

Do we have any indication from the players involved in the incident what sort of planet and neighborhood and bar this took place in? I thought we did, but that could have been from the high signal to noise ratio.

By normal standards, the player's response was unreasonable, possibly psychopathic.

This does not justify the GM's ensuing actions, though they certainly do go a long way towards explaining them.

That about sums up my feelings on the matter.

This is kinda getting out of hand...

Can't we play nice?

I tried for the 'let's make funny scenarios with the random murder', didn't seem to take.

Yeah, I'm out too guys.

Look, both parties were wrong. The player was not clear enough, the GM was too heavy handed and then didn't allow a mulligan when the player clarified his position. It could easily be cleared up with a bit of communication and a desire to put story over ***** waving.

Please give it a rest guys, all this mudslinging is just bad form. This is an interesting topic, but if things continue to heat up the thread will get locked. Stop the accusations and insults.

Well the biggest murderhobo in the OT is Luke Skywalker. He killed all those innocent Death Star workers with two proton torpedos.

So innocent they were going to blow up a planet...like they already had done once before.

You're not doing your case any favours by tossing out words like "innocent" when it clearly does not apply.

The only people guilty of blowing up Alderaan is Tarkin, Vader, and the guys working the superlaser controls. All the rest like stormtroopers, TIE pilots, janitors, food service people, and construction workers were innocent. Luke "Greatest Murderhobo" Skywalker killed more people in 10 seconds than his old man did in 20 years as a Sith.

Well the biggest murderhobo in the OT is Luke Skywalker. He killed all those innocent Death Star workers with two proton torpedos.

So innocent they were going to blow up a planet...like they already had done once before.

You're not doing your case any favours by tossing out words like "innocent" when it clearly does not apply.

The only people guilty of blowing up Alderaan is Tarkin, Vader, and the guys working the superlaser controls. All the rest like stormtroopers, TIE pilots, janitors, food service people, and construction workers were innocent. Luke "Greatest Murderhobo" Skywalker killed more people in 10 seconds than his old man did in 20 years as a Sith.

I honestly thought you were joking at first. I legitimately don't know what to say.

Well the biggest murderhobo in the OT is Luke Skywalker. He killed all those innocent Death Star workers with two proton torpedos.

So innocent they were going to blow up a planet...like they already had done once before.

You're not doing your case any favours by tossing out words like "innocent" when it clearly does not apply.

The only people guilty of blowing up Alderaan is Tarkin, Vader, and the guys working the superlaser controls. All the rest like stormtroopers, TIE pilots, janitors, food service people, and construction workers were innocent. Luke "Greatest Murderhobo" Skywalker killed more people in 10 seconds than his old man did in 20 years as a Sith.

Lawful combatants, on a legitimate target, during time of war. It's not murder.

Well the biggest murderhobo in the OT is Luke Skywalker. He killed all those innocent Death Star workers with two proton torpedos.

So innocent they were going to blow up a planet...like they already had done once before.

You're not doing your case any favours by tossing out words like "innocent" when it clearly does not apply.

The only people guilty of blowing up Alderaan is Tarkin, Vader, and the guys working the superlaser controls. All the rest like stormtroopers, TIE pilots, janitors, food service people, and construction workers were innocent. Luke "Greatest Murderhobo" Skywalker killed more people in 10 seconds than his old man did in 20 years as a Sith.

I honestly thought you were joking at first. I legitimately don't know what to say.

I am joking. I'm using their logic.

As far as we know there isn't an actual declaration of war against the Rebellion. The Empire considered them to be terrorists.

Ooooh we're about half a page away from proving Godwin's law. After that comes the inevitable thread lock.

Days like these, I miss EricB.

Well the biggest murderhobo in the OT is Luke Skywalker. He killed all those innocent Death Star workers with two proton torpedos.

So innocent they were going to blow up a planet...like they already had done once before.

You're not doing your case any favours by tossing out words like "innocent" when it clearly does not apply.

The only people guilty of blowing up Alderaan is Tarkin, Vader, and the guys working the superlaser controls. All the rest like stormtroopers, TIE pilots, janitors, food service people, and construction workers were innocent. Luke "Greatest Murderhobo" Skywalker killed more people in 10 seconds than his old man did in 20 years as a Sith.

I honestly thought you were joking at first. I legitimately don't know what to say.

I am joking. I'm using their logic.

Whose? Because all I see is a false equivocacy fired out into empty space.