So we started a new campaign using the Force and Destiny book (our group has played other games before) and we initially liked the concept because it seemed a little tough to be completely munchkin. Well, one of our players found a way to pull it off - and then complained that the rules were arbitrary when it didn't exactly go his way. So I wanted to get some thoughts and opinion from you guys.

First of all, he picked a class that gave him an INT of 4 and then he used creation points to bump INT to 5. He then chose the Consular: Sage path, built his way to "One with the Universe", and picked the Heal/Harm power. Aside from default skills, that was his entire character.

At first level, every single intelligence based skill he is completely dominating at. Even with characters that have actual skill training. He argues, "Well my character is just a genius", and believes that a genius could perform brain surgery without training (in his actual words he said 'I think we have very different definitions of genius'). He has no ranks in Medicine, but was able to manage insane medicinal tasks. He had no ranks in mechanic (we had someone else with mechanic who was worse than him) and easily pulled off a mechanic check.

We read the rules and it doesn't specify that an untrained character should get any negative dice. It does suggest that in the task difficulty descriptions (pg 26-27 F&D core) and in the narrative skills description (pg. 112) that training in a skill matters, particularly narratively, but he says that's arbitrary and it has no mechanical impact on the game.

That's just the skills side. Now to his Heal/Harm power and 'One with the Universe'. Basically, he offset the potential use of a dark side point by rushing to 'One with the Universe' and was using the Harm power of Heal/Harm, then complained when the GM gave him 2 conflict (1 by default and a second for using a power to intentionally harm someone). He thought that was arbitrary.

We actually got him to concede this one after pointing that the book states that extra conflict and what not is solely at the discretion of the GM. And it is completely arbitrary, although the intentions of the character should be considered.

Basically, he's really pushing the limits of the game, and is trying to force consistent rules to allow his character to get the maximum effect, even when the rules themselves say that the game has some fluctuation that is up to the DM.

Can anyone offer some advice? Some errata or posts from FFG regarding something along these lines?

Welcome, marshzd!

You get what you pay for and if he's bought 5 Int and that gives him better results than the guys with trained skills then that's just the way it goes. It's not intended to be realistic but your characters in this system are meant to be capable of doing a heck of a lot. If that's a problem all your GM needs to do is write more scenes that require more than that one characteristic (wilderness survival, physical challenges, social interaction tests, etc.). If it's just a sore point for the specialists they should take comfort in the fact that although he'll pass more often, they'll have a greater chance of getting a triumph and so will be able to do more impressive crap with this roll.

Personally I'd never start with a 5 in any characteristic as I like to be useful in as often as possible. Out of four characters I've played only one has had a characteristic or skill above 3 (Agility 4 and Mechanic 5, both for my bounty hunter gadgeteer) and there's rarely been a situation she couldn't get out of.

I'm a bit unsure what your mate's point is regarding One With the Universe + Harm.

ONE WITH THE UNIVERSE

Once per session, while meditating, make an average (2) Astrogation check. Success adds [lsp] to all Force power checks in next encounter. Success with Threat adds [dsp] instead.

HEAL/HARM BASIC POWER

The Force user bolsters his ally with renewed vigor or saps his foe of vital energy.

Heal (light side Force user only): Spend [fp] to heal a number of wounds equal to Intellect from an engaged living creature (including the user). The user may not activate this multiple times.

Harm: Spend [fp] to inflict a number of wounds equal to Intellect (ignoring soak) on an engaged target. The user gains 1 Conflict. The user may not activate this multiple times.

Sure, he's likely to be generating a light side point to activate the power (so doesn't have to gain conflict for using a dark side point), but then the power itself explicitly gives him a conflict point. It's sapping energy from a living being - by the rules, by the game background, by the mythology of the films and expanded universe that is plainly tapping into the dark side of the Force. This is what Yoda was telling Luke when he said "A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defence, never for attack".

That your GM gave him another conflict point on top of that is also fine. Maybe not every time he uses Harm, but certainly the first time (it should be narrated as a horrible experience, IMO), certainly if he uses it for torture, certainly if it seems like he revels in it.

About being arbitrary. The character has to want to cause pain and physical trauma to use the power - these are negative emotions that inherently damage a Force Sensitive's psyche. That's only as arbitrary as any game system's mechanics. He may as well complain that stim packs are gone when they're used.

Any extra conflict the GM sees fit to inflict should never be arbitrary and should reflect how he's using it (you probably wouldn't give more conflict if the character hated what they were doing but saw it as necessary to protect someone else).

When dealing with... let's say people who enjoy the Game at the expense of the Role-Playing, it's kinda the GM's responsibility to have a private, friendly word with them.

A good place to start is to ask the player remembers about what the Star Wars movies felt like, how he remembers the Jedi's acting, and when he felt they strayed into the dark side ('cause they almost all do). Then explain what tone you're all going for, what's been planned, what type of game they think will make everyone happy.

If he doesn't react well to what should be a non-judgemental, friendly chat, or understands but still wants to play his character against the tone of the game then at my table he'd have opted out of the unwritten rule that fellow PCs get more leeway than NPCs. If you were a Jedi hanging out with someone who was boiling people's souls you and your buddies would end up getting them imprisoned or put down like the rabid dog they are.

Which species has 4 Intellect? Isn't that Drall? What other ones? Have a Drall perform a few Athletics or Resilience checks and see how far his brain gets him.

You want to know what the GM can do to modify the difficulty for untrained checks? Setback dice.

"The players enjoy the chance to try creative solutions within the game, and the GM can regulate the difficulty through the addition of more [setback] instead of saying no to the idea." -- Age of Rebellion Core Rulebook p.311.

At first level, every single intelligence based skill he is completely dominating at. Even with characters that have actual skill training. He argues, "Well my character is just a genius", and believes that a genius could perform brain surgery without training (in his actual words he said 'I think we have very different definitions of genius'). He has no ranks in Medicine, but was able to manage insane medicinal tasks. He had no ranks in mechanic (we had someone else with mechanic who was worse than him) and easily pulled off a mechanic check.

The game is built around the GM saying "yes, and...", but of course that assumes everyone is being reasonable. I'd let him do these things untrained, but I'd also automatically upgrade purple dice to red, maybe all of them depending on the severity/criticality of the thing he's trying to do. In other words, if he's trying to heal a critical, he could end up causing one as well...because his character might be "smart", but he's still very ignorant (and unwise to boot).

If a friendly chat doesn't go the proper direction, and you don't want to tell them they can't play anymore, then I have a suggestion.

Slanted GMing. Whenever the player attempts something, offer little to no narration. "You succeed; damage?" "You fail. Next." Then offer the appropriate reactions for the other players. It's passive aggresive, and that's obnoxious, but it gives the trouble player an idea of what they are missing. Takes some of the drama, tension, and flavor from them.

If he insists on playing in black and white, use the rest of the players to demonstrate the benefits of technicolor gameplay.

The rules aspect isn't that difficult to adjust. The difficulties listed in the book are more or less guidelines and not hard and fast rules that need to be adhered to. The adventures themselves frequently recommend that Gm's adjust difficulties to suit the party. Thus it is within the GM's right to change the difficulty in order to challenge the player. After all part of the GM's job is to challenge the players. But another thing that can be easily done is just hit the character where he's weak. An Int of 5 means that he doesn't have much else going on. He's likely to fail all other kinds of challenges.

But honestly, in my opinion, this isn't a rules problem. This is a player problem. This guy seems to have a mind set in which he feels it's ok to work the system in the fashion that he does. To the point that it may be problematic for everyone else. This is the kind of person you need to sit down and talk with out of character and establish some ground rules on what acceptable behavior is and what acceptable character concepts are. Just because the rules say you can do something doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it. And a player that abuses the more "arbitrary" nature of the narrative rules may need a more firm out of game control element than an in game one.

Make him roll to hit with heal/harm since he actually needs to touch a person to hurt them.

Even if its a discipline check it would be a melee combat check.

One with the universe is a once per session ability which only applies in the next encounter and takes a good 15 minutes of meditation to activate. I'm not sure how you could abuse that at all for combat purposes unless you ignore its limitations.

Honestly 2 conflict is not enough. Its 1 conflict for activating the power 1 for resorting to violence and well 4-5 if its unprovoked and another 10 for the whole torturing a sentient being by sucking the life force out of them.

Have a chat with him. Explain to him the merits of making a more balanced character v and tell him that you're taking it easy on him. Then offer to let him rebuild. When he refuses, it'll be his funeral. You should build a campaign around exploiting his obvious weaknesses instead of his strengths.

Do lots of moderately difficult physical group skill challenges like chases, pitfall jumping, swimming, balancing, and breath holding that challenge the whole party. Then split the party, trick him into going off on his own, and hammer him while he's alone with social challenges, stealth checks, perception checks, and combat.

If he thinks he can exploit the rules it's because you're probably allowing him to.

Thanks guys! And thanks for not criticizing my first post on the forum. I didn't want to be whiny, but I didn't think that there was anywhere to turn.

The idea that he has to roll to attack with his Heal/Harm power is something we missed. Pg. 283 has a section of rules regarding using powers against stronger NPC's and Nemesis, where you have to roll to hit. This changes everything in regards to that power. We weren't doing that.

And it's good to know that most people feel that the skills should be adjusted to reflect his lack of skill and/or character concept.

Thanks!

Yup, he min-maxed a character stupidly and is now playing a one diametrical trick pony that isn't even that by raw. It is required to roll apposed disapline checks to actually connect with a harm force power, thus his mega intelligent skill money is good at int checks and nothing else.

I mean, I've played a 5 int character before that has a sheltering of training in various areas in that he's smart and picks up concepts really quickly, but lacks the proper training thus lacking that edge many others do. That being said he often partners with more trained specialists by bringing fresh ideas to argument the wisdom. As such he's a bit of a smart ass at times and is often plotting out elaboutate schemes, but not all knowing.

Not bad for a gadgeteer turned fs.

I don't think you should punish him for putting all his eggs in one basket, increasing his difficulties arbitrarily. As others have pointed out he will fail on pretty much anything that doen't involve Intelligence.
Also things will even out a lot when people start reaching dedication and increase their stats too. The system punishes you in the long run for not spreading stats a bit at creation.
Another thing to remember is that when he rolls untrained, even if he passes he will never get any Triumph results, wich are pretty awesome. Just encourage him to pick ranks in skills that he uses a lot, so his character will make more sense (he should be learning something from all those rolls right?) and everyone will be happy.

If another character is specializing in mechanic stuff (or other things), when he starts getting the cool mechanic talents + some dedication, he will outperform the 'genius' in those tasks anyway.

And about heal/harm opposed checks vs important npcs, I would recommend using the mastery as a guideline and use Medicine vs Resilience. He will not have an easy time suceeding vs strong enemies (many enemies have high Brawn)

All in all, in my opinion the best course would be to talk to him and ask him to restrain himself against going for every Intelligence roll the party has to face (even if he might be the best at the task in paper) and let others get some spotlight too.

And it's good to know that most people feel that the skills should be adjusted to reflect his lack of skill and/or character concept.

Other than the upgrade I mentioned for things that could potentially backfire, I wouldn't go overboard. Just give him the same challenges everyone else faces. My players are now more well rounded, but in the beginning I could see them deciding they didn't need certain things. None of them took Discipline, for example, because they didn't really know what it did. Now, several failed Fear checks later, they all have at least a rank or two. Similar with Vigilance, Cool, Resilience and other skills where it's difficult to see an immediate benefit. Other games allow characters to effectively ignore whole groups of skills because they are designed to be monolithic. This game is not.

Another thing to do is make sure your encounters don't always default to "the there is one task for each specialist" pattern. Maybe the pilot is busy and Mr Intellect has to take over because there is no one else. Don't let him sit there going "that's not my speciality", pull all the players out of their comfort zones.

Maybe I'm not understanding what's going on entirely but I don't see a huge problem here. Sure he's hyper specialized but 5 green shouldn't be outdoing a decent character with ranks in skills and moderate int let alone proper talents to augment those skills. On top of this a character who's hyper specialized in being a int generalist is going to be bad at a ton of other things and that's basically the balancing factor, that they're giving up the ability to do good social interactions, other kinds of combat, etc for being really smart.
This is a problem any GM can solve simply by varying up the kinds of checks they call for to illustrate why such character building has it's set backs.

I've been playing this game since edge of the empire released (a few resets and one break given), and I've only seen players hyper specialize when they're new, most who've played for longer tend to learn the heavy flaws of doing so and that it's far more beneficial for themselves and everyone else to avoid hyper specialization.

Like most of the others have said, this sort of behavior is mostly a player issue. So I won't go on about that.

I did want to suggest reading the skill descriptions provided in the book's "Skills" chapter. IIRC, there are a couple that, in their descriptions, say they can't be used untrained. Medicine and mechanics, I think. Maybe not mechanics, I'm at work and don't have my books handy. There are ways around that, of course (for example, there's a medical kit that gives you a rank in Medicine if you don't have one, so you can actually use the skill), but that information is only gotten by reading the skill descriptions.

And as Col. Orange said, welcome to the forums

Edit: Disregard what I said about not using skills untrained. i got home and looked at my books, and was incorrect. That's what I get for trying to remember rules in the middle of putting together info for auditors

Maybe I'm not understanding what's going on entirely but I don't see a huge problem here. Sure he's hyper specialized but 5 green shouldn't be outdoing a decent character with ranks in skills and moderate int let alone proper talents to augment those skills. On top of this a character who's hyper specialized in being a int generalist is going to be bad at a ton of other things and that's basically the balancing factor, that they're giving up the ability to do good social interactions, other kinds of combat, etc for being really smart.

While the player seems to be something of a problem, I don't think having a high stat in itself is an issue. We have characters with 5 and 6's in stats and sometimes they make checks in areas they don't have talents. They have a decent chance of success but can't get Triumphs without those yellow dice.

Someone with 5 greens shouldn't be outshining someone with 3 yellows really.

But another thing that can be easily done is just hit the character where he's weak. An Int of 5 means that he doesn't have much else going on. He's likely to fail all other kinds of challenges.

Very much this. Assuming he's a drall, they have lousy Brawn and Agility, stats which are important for lots of checks. Just because he's smart doesn't mean he isn't severely deficient in other areas.

He should expect to succeed in areas he specialises in and to fail where he's only got a 1.

I'd let him do these things untrained, but I'd also automatically upgrade purple dice to red, maybe all of them depending on the severity/criticality of the thing he's trying to do.

Would you really upgrade to a Red? The book strongly suggests you save Upgrades for Destiny flipping or specific talents like Adversary or Nobody's Fool, and not to arbitrarily Upgrade dice.

I could see how some black dice might be appropriate, but not Red ones. I don't Upgrade other checks for characters who lack a skill but have good green dice pools.

Can anyone offer some advice?

Oh sure, you could hit him in the dump stat (which, by the sounds of it, is everything but Smarts) of use in-game sanctions against the character - but really, just start out talking to him.

Tell him that that the game is not about the mechanics and all about telling the best story that the group can. That his powerhouse character is dragging the fun down for the rest of the table, and that you would be happy to work with him to make more of a concept and less of a optimized spreadsheet of numbers.

And then, if he digs his heels in and resists, it's time to deploy the biggest weapon in the GM's arsenal: say no. "Sorry, I wont allow that unbalancing character in the game. Come up with something else or you are free to find a new group. I hate to do that, but you're killing the fun for everyone."

Would you really upgrade to a Red? The book strongly suggests you save Upgrades for Destiny flipping or specific talents like Adversary or Nobody's Fool, and not to arbitrarily Upgrade dice.

I could see how some black dice might be appropriate, but not Red ones. I don't Upgrade other checks for characters who lack a skill but have good green dice pools.

Depends on what you are doing. Mundane tasks like repairing an engine? Sure, blacks only. Brain surgery or disarming a bomb without skill? Absolutely!

I'd let him do these things untrained, but I'd also automatically upgrade purple dice to red, maybe all of them depending on the severity/criticality of the thing he's trying to do.

Would you really upgrade to a Red? The book strongly suggests you save Upgrades for Destiny flipping or specific talents like Adversary or Nobody's Fool, and not to arbitrarily Upgrade dice.

Without a doubt. I don't consider it arbitrary at all, it's more like flying through terrain with a fat ship at high speed...IOW, serious upgrades can be inherent to the severity of the task. I'm not saying I do it lightly...95% of the time my upgrades are limited to DPs and opposed checks. But sometimes...

I'll admit part of my response is due to my dislike of players leveraging such things, and I consider arguments like "b-b-but I'm a genius" to be incredibly dull. The game is already wide open. Anybody can try anything, and that's the way a good Star Wars game should run. But there are plenty of ways for the characters to pull off the incredible already, why go overboard when the player makes a munchkin?

Besides, would you let Matt Damon's character in Good Will Hunting do brain surgery? No way. A skill represents knowledge, muscle memory, etc. Being really smart doesn't mean you know the difference between a muscle and a tendon, and you can't figure it out in a firefight. Zero training means you will never know those things. But with the slightest training, a smart character can extrapolate a lot more than one of average Intellect, something the game rewards very well.

Some games don't even let you try such things. I'm happy to allow it, if the player accepts the risks.

Interesting to see how people play it. I didn't see anything about changing difficulty for 'unskilled' use in the books, just that you won't get Yellow dice.

I can see why you might do it that way, but I don't personally. Black dice are supposed to be the tools to use for playing with difficulty on a situational basis. I'd consider it for a Destiny flip but I don't think I've ever Upgraded difficulty outside of a DP or a Talent.

Oddly, I think some of the early adventures actually do this, but the core rules advise against it.

Black dice are supposed to be the tools to use for playing with difficulty on a situational basis. I'd consider it for a Destiny flip but I don't think I've ever Upgraded difficulty outside of a DP or a Talent.

But I'm not playing with difficulty, I'm playing with results, which is the point. A climb above a lava pit might not be any harder than a climb above a trampoline, so there's no reason to add setback. In the case of lava, it's not that I'd drop them in if they got a Despair, but it gives more room for interesting results (wounds, criticals related to heat exposure, strain from toxic fumes, etc). A setback messes more with the difficulty than an upgrade, while an upgrade pushes more Threat (and Despair).

Oddly, I think some of the early adventures actually do this, but the core rules advise against it.

I think it's good advice on the whole, but like anything there are exceptions. And as someone who tossed the Morality mechanic (for valid reasons IMHO), you must agree the core rules aren't a straightjacket.

I think it's good advice on the whole, but like anything there are exceptions. And as someone who tossed the Morality mechanic (for valid reasons IMHO), you must agree the core rules aren't a straightjacket

Oh, I'm the last person to care about RAW, believe me. (And I'm not trying to argue with you, whafrog.)

It's just that I've tried not to tamper with the core dice rules if I can help it (I believe that Morality, Obligation and all these fiddly little sub-systems aren't necessary for the game).

So it's interesting to see that many people here play it differently. Do you find that Despair results come up a lot more? Does it tend to make things harder for the players?

Just interested is all.

Yes Despairs come up a bit more often, but not a lot more. As above, it's rare that I'll upgrade without a DP or opposed check. I think I don't overstate their impact though when they do come up. I see some people react as if it's the end of the world, but I try to scale it so it simply adds something interesting or changes the challenges or...whatever is useful for the narrative.

As a general rule, if good amount of xp was earned and used for a trick, its viable. I have a PC who rushed to Force Rating 4 and Protect up to Mastery... he is now Over-Powered, but it costed him loads of xp, and he earned it rightfully.

Black dice are supposed to be the tools to use for playing with difficulty on a situational basis. I'd consider it for a Destiny flip but I don't think I've ever Upgraded difficulty outside of a DP or a Talent.

But I'm not playing with difficulty, I'm playing with results, which is the point. A climb above a lava pit might not be any harder than a climb above a trampoline, so there's no reason to add setback. In the case of lava, it's not that I'd drop them in if they got a Despair, but it gives more room for interesting results (wounds, criticals related to heat exposure, strain from toxic fumes, etc). A setback messes more with the difficulty than an upgrade, while an upgrade pushes more Threat (and Despair).

Oddly, I think some of the early adventures actually do this, but the core rules advise against it.

I think it's good advice on the whole, but like anything there are exceptions. And as someone who tossed the Morality mechanic (for valid reasons IMHO), you must agree the core rules aren't a straightjacket.

A climb above a lava pit is infinitely more difficult then climbing next to a trampoline.

1. Heat without some kind of protection from heat the characters will need to make resillience checks or take set backs on the climb roll from sweating, heat exhaustion and my personal favorite pain.

2. Then there is the toxic fumes the lava is giving off that are lethal to humans

3. Then last but not least is bubbles bursting and sending foreign materials into the air.

Just look at that vid and then explain to me how climbing near a pit of lava is exactly like climbing near a trampoline.

Just look at that vid and then explain to me how climbing near a pit of lava is exactly like climbing near a trampoline.

Just look at my post and then explain where I said "exactly". I said "might not". Obviously, if it is, then setback or additional purple dice might be required. But those won't generate a Despair, which seems perfectly possible in that situation.

I will definitely throw an Upgrade into the mix without flipping a DP, usually i do it instead of raising the difficulty of the check, then add a setback or 2 as well. If the Player knows the risks then i feel a little more freedom to do this. Of course if the Player has no idea of the risk involved with the task they are performing then ill definitely flip the DP.