My players make a lot of money. They have about 970,000 in the 'bank'. But rather than break the campaign it's just simply upgraded their wants. Now, instead of wanting weapons or armor, they are trying to buy space stations, capital ships, and recruits to form their own mercenary army. So it really depends on what the players want. a 200,000 reward is overkill for a small group who only care about themselves. But, for a group who wants to wage war or do something big, 200,000 barely pays to keep a capital ship running. Hell, if they want to make a simple cargo company a large cargo ship will run them 6,500,000. So it all depends on the scale.

This sounds like you are using the Duty/Contribution system, without using the Duty/Contribution system. "A group who wants to wage war", well that sounds like people who should probably be working for the Rebellion, and could get some pretty awesome stuff, with their Contributions.

Yeah, when crime lords lose bets like that, they generally don't take it in stride, especially if they suspect that they were hustled. I'd expect Jabba and the Vigo to make life difficult for the players in the future (possibly represented by a sizable Obligation).

That is a question mark hanging over the player's head. The race was fair and square and (based on the dice involved) a real nail-biter, so the player is hoping that they'll find the excitement worth the payout (it was they, not the player, who kept increasing the wager, after all). But, what the player hopes and what the GM decides happens may or may not be similar.

My players make a lot of money. They have about 970,000 in the 'bank'. But rather than break the campaign it's just simply upgraded their wants. Now, instead of wanting weapons or armor, they are trying to buy space stations, capital ships, and recruits to form their own mercenary army. So it really depends on what the players want. a 200,000 reward is overkill for a small group who only care about themselves. But, for a group who wants to wage war or do something big, 200,000 barely pays to keep a capital ship running. Hell, if they want to make a simple cargo company a large cargo ship will run them 6,500,000. So it all depends on the scale.

This sounds like you are using the Duty/Contribution system, without using the Duty/Contribution system. "A group who wants to wage war", well that sounds like people who should probably be working for the Rebellion, and could get some pretty awesome stuff, with their Contributions.

They just started on the long road to actually contact the Rebellion. They have a small army and finall realized that the Empire can blow them up in about 5 minutes if they feel like it so they're trying to get hooked up with the Rebellion. Another way I strain their resources is that they have an information broker that supplies them with contacts, jobs, and info but requires 250,000 every six months and takes 30% of their mission pay. So even their large paychecks have to be budgeted between running their new army and paying their broker.

My group tries to stay loyal to the Empire for now. But since 1 char has the motivation to overthrow the Empire he plays the long shot, trying to get people into his fold and all that jazz. We are all looking forward to the day when (not if) it goes into the open. Who needs a Rebellion if just as an example several moffs band together and sever ties with the Empire.

I have started to run into that same problem in a way:

In a previous campaign players complained they didnt get enough money, so I was more generous this time, until they had a solid ship (G-9 Rigger with slightly better guns), and some money. The result? Pretty much all of them went and just rolled until they could find the BiS (best-in-slot) weapons for their characters, spent 10k on each of those, modded them up to the maximum. Then the same with armor.

They basically didnt buy anything else, basically saying that if their ship is crap, I will balance my encounters for it, and if they dont have the gear, well, its not gonna kill anybody, at worst they have to take the long way around the cliff or something.

As a GM, I can of course just gear up my opponents too, but as a matter of fact, as long as my players dont have the absolute top-end in personal combat gear, they refuse to buy anything else, leading to me either punishing them session by session (and they refuse to budge anyway, i tried), killing everyones fun, or dealing with the fact it ll just be that way, and start an arms race which I find leads to really deadly, really random combat.

Its a problem I have never had before, but it stems from the fact that personal gear is easy to get and relatively cheap on the low end, but can become godly with mods. I think my players feel that anything that isnt BiS is not worth the time nor credits, so they skip 95% of the weapons anyway.

Stuff like the DX-10, the Raider Arms Viper or a specific modded lightsaber, KavDann power armor etc. so vastly outstrip all other gear options that its really the only items my group wants.

My solution, so far, has been rather simple: I just dont allow them to roll for such a specific item, because all of these items state they are exceedingly rare and/or only available on a certain world. This has led to grumbling, because they title any other item "crap". But basically, if your group refuses to use credits in a fashion that makes sense for the "keep them hungry" thing, and refuse to cooperate, you are screwed.

I have started to run into that same problem in a way:

In a previous campaign players complained they didnt get enough money, so I was more generous this time, until they had a solid ship (G-9 Rigger with slightly better guns), and some money. The result? Pretty much all of them went and just rolled until they could find the BiS (best-in-slot) weapons for their characters, spent 10k on each of those, modded them up to the maximum. Then the same with armor.

They basically didnt buy anything else, basically saying that if their ship is crap, I will balance my encounters for it, and if they dont have the gear, well, its not gonna kill anybody, at worst they have to take the long way around the cliff or something.

As a GM, I can of course just gear up my opponents too, but as a matter of fact, as long as my players dont have the absolute top-end in personal combat gear, they refuse to buy anything else, leading to me either punishing them session by session (and they refuse to budge anyway, i tried), killing everyones fun, or dealing with the fact it ll just be that way, and start an arms race which I find leads to really deadly, really random combat.

Its a problem I have never had before, but it stems from the fact that personal gear is easy to get and relatively cheap on the low end, but can become godly with mods. I think my players feel that anything that isnt BiS is not worth the time nor credits, so they skip 95% of the weapons anyway.

Stuff like the DX-10, the Raider Arms Viper or a specific modded lightsaber, KavDann power armor etc. so vastly outstrip all other gear options that its really the only items my group wants.

My solution, so far, has been rather simple: I just dont allow them to roll for such a specific item, because all of these items state they are exceedingly rare and/or only available on a certain world. This has led to grumbling, because they title any other item "crap". But basically, if your group refuses to use credits in a fashion that makes sense for the "keep them hungry" thing, and refuse to cooperate, you are screwed.

Sounds like your players are stuck in an MMO mindset. If they actually used the "Best in Slot" term to describe stuff, this is definitely the case.

Question for you:

Do they actually roleplay their characters? Or do they just engage in your encounters, ask for the loot tally, and then decide which bit of gear is best for them to get next? Because I am picturing them as "Ok so we've got this gear from these badguys, if we sell it off, that gets us X credits, which if I get Y amount of it, I can buy Z. Then you can have the rest to work on buying your X item...huh GM? What's that? Plot stuff? Yeah yeah, that's nice, so anyway, the gear distribution...." Is it even remotely like that? Because if so, your players have simply missed the mark on what this game system is actually about, and are still using their MMO brain for something that isn't an MMO.

I dunno what to tell you to do. I've just never really cared about gear as a player in RPG's. It's not where my focus lies. I like skills/talents. Gear can be taken away, my talents can't. Maybe try and remind them that the heroes in the movies aren't busy constantly upgrading their gear. And in fact, have very little in the way of gear. Han's wearing padded clothing at best for pretty much the entire trilogy, and he's got a heavy blaster...that's it. Luke's got a lightsaber and a robe...that's it. Leia has a light blaster, and that's it. Gear isn't the focus of the game, they are props (that are rarely used by the heroes) to help further the story. That's it.

Hmm, actually, just thought of something. Have them fight people who are using all that "crap' gear they scoff at. And see how "crap" it is after they almost die to it. That might work. Or just smack them upside the head any time they start acting like min/maxing munchkins. I opt for the head smack option myself.

Part of my problem with "keeping the players poor" are some of the methods suggested - Star Wars Attack of the Bureacracy.

I don't want to nickle and dime the players out of credits: docking fees, expensive repairs, other hidden fees and costs of maintenance etc.

I find that players will find interesting an non min/max/munchkin things to do with their credits if they don't feel like they need to hold on to them with an iron fist to save up for something that's important to their character concept.

Expecially in this system where getting a cool item can often just be the beginning as there is a robust and interesting modding system.

This is a problem I have not run into, but I wonder if you might be able to chip away at their insistence on waiting for the "best in slot" gear through the attachments system. If you point out that they can acquire, mod, and use attachments with whatever they have on hand, then move them to other equipment, then they might be willing to putting up with using that Heavy Blaster Pistol with a Blaster Actuating Module that they can later rip out and put in the Dragoon blaster (or whatever) that they're pining for. This doesn't make sense for every attachment, but it would allow them to increase their capabilities more gradually, rather than sitting on basic gear for five sessions until they finally make the Negotiations check to find the Rarity 8 gear of their dreams.

This is a problem I have not run into, but I wonder if you might be able to chip away at their insistence on waiting for the "best in slot" gear through the attachments system. If you point out that they can acquire, mod, and use attachments with whatever they have on hand, then move them to other equipment, then they might be willing to putting up with using that Heavy Blaster Pistol with a Blaster Actuating Module that they can later rip out and put in the Dragoon blaster (or whatever) that they're pining for. This doesn't make sense for every attachment, but it would allow them to increase their capabilities more gradually, rather than sitting on basic gear for five sessions until they finally make the Negotiations check to find the Rarity 8 gear of their dreams.

Noble ideal, but I suspect the players would respond to that suggestion with the following:

"Oooor, I could just save my credits, then buy the even better item, mod it out and be even more powerful/badass!

Part of my problem with "keeping the players poor" are some of the methods suggested - Star Wars Attack of the Bureacracy.

I don't want to nickle and dime the players out of credits: docking fees, expensive repairs, other hidden fees and costs of maintenance etc.

I find that players will find interesting an non min/max/munchkin things to do with their credits if they don't feel like they need to hold on to them with an iron fist to save up for something that's important to their character concept.

Expecially in this system where getting a cool item can often just be the beginning as there is a robust and interesting modding system.

Indeed, making the players constantly worry about credits with this and that and the other fee and cost and charge and expense is probably a good way to make them concentrate on credits MORE, not LESS.

My players have about as much money as I need them to have... If they have too little they can make a bit more on their next adventure, if they are getting too comfortable then a tornado hits the ranch.

However I have yet to experience the displeasure of a party who had monetary gain as an end instead of a means.

Right now my edge party is struggling financially due to a lost gamble on a cloud car race in Cloud City. Yet my F&D party literally were handed the keys to the Ranch a few episodes ago. They are running a healthy homestead from which they set up hunting trips and back country trips for wealthy imperials (who have no idea they are being taken into the back country by Force Sensitives) they have made a lot of money for themselves thusfar but I do deduct a lot of credits every session for maintenance and upkeep. Mind you, we are not bookkeeping but they are running a thriving business and it is a lot of fun.

Sure, those pesky Gammorean bikers are trying to shake them down for protection money every once in a while but with Oprah money comes Oprah problems I guess...

We started our campaign as a firefly-esque one, but it quickly didn't go over well because the players wouldn't take the initiative to find work, ask questions about shipping costs and fees nor plan for such things. So we quickly shifted focus to the story and moving a larger story along and I would reward them in chunks at a time.

I think this game (EotE, AoR and F&D) strongly encourages a sandbox style campaign but sort of breaks down when you add a more structured plot. Or at least it seems to do so for my players.

We started our campaign as a firefly-esque one, but it quickly didn't go over well because the players wouldn't take the initiative to find work, ask questions about shipping costs and fees nor plan for such things. So we quickly shifted focus to the story and moving a larger story along and I would reward them in chunks at a time.

I think this game (EotE, AoR and F&D) strongly encourages a sandbox style campaign but sort of breaks down when you add a more structured plot. Or at least it seems to do so for my players.

Yeah, I had this problem with a previous game I ran with my players. One made a Twi'lek smuggler pilot, and the other was his Lifedebted Wookie companion (yeah, I know, Kings of Originality, that's my players). So I started the game with them on a space station, described it as a huge facility, teaming with opportunity for stuff. And just sort of held out my hands and said "What do you do?" The pilot smuggler just looked at me with deer in headlights look. "Uh, uh....I don't know!" He was petrified at the idea of taking agency. So, we ended that game pretty quick, and now I railroad them heavily, which seems to be their comfort zone. I try and push them off the rails, but they always shrink away, like a rodent from direct light. It's kind of depressing in some ways.

Man, I would go crazy at your table. While I enjoy the linear, scripted A->B->C->D plots, I also like some room to just breath too. Gimmie some time at the start before we find the droid with the stolen plans to go get into trouble on my own.

Asking out of game before a campaign starts what kinds of things the PCs would be interested in getting involved in helps. You provide multiple options, but they're options they asked for. You give them a nudge in the right direction at session's beginning, and then let them figure out how to deal with whatever. So kind of like rails in a sandbox I guess.

I know there are GMs that want to script their own personal opus, which is fine, as long as that's what the PCs want to do. You write up the multi system smuggler baron rags to riches epic though, and everyone wanted to be poor Jedi monks fighting the good fight and you've wasted more or less everyone's time.

Man, I would go crazy at your table. While I enjoy the linear, scripted A->B->C->D plots, I also like some room to just breath too. Gimmie some time at the start before we find the droid with the stolen plans to go get into trouble on my own.

I actually just started a new Age of Rebellion campaign with a group of heavy-duty and experienced roleplayers. When I sat down and ran the title crawl, I immediately threw out my initial plan -- starting with them on approach to their first assignment -- and walked the time back to when they're meeting on the ship for the first time. They had a blast getting the chance to get into character, and when they landed I said they had to meet their contact in the middle of a halli blossom festival and the streets of the city were packed with tourists, vendors, and ne'er-do-wells, as well as patrolling law enforcement and a few Imperials. It was basically a playground for their characters to do what they wanted, and for the players to try out their characters' personalities.

The trick is to avoid letting the players go off on their own for too long. The main story should reassert itself fairly quickly, like I'll be doing in the next session. But giving players room to breathe and just play a normal or fun day in their characters' lives is a good thing once in a while, too.

If a GM wants to use the tight credits approach, they have to hand out gear in some reward/payment fashion or you end up with the pillager mind set.

Exactly. I'm about as far away from being a Loot All The Things player as you can get, but even I would start to get frustrated if I was constantly denied resources (or had my ship shot out from under us three times (joking jab at my GM who just did that)). If you don't give them stuff or promise them "the tone of the game is playing with your bank accounts close to the threshold, but don't worry - I'll make sure some cool stuff comes your way, too" during the Episode Zero game, that it'll start to have a negive impact on your game.

You could of course play a bunch of nobles and rich politicians with FFG Star Wars too, but it`s not the default setting, gameplay and feel the game is going for.

Counterpoint: Lando - a high roller with a taste for the high life and plenty of Obligation (in the form of looking out for the people of cloud city) wouldn't be too out of place in a Edge campaign. Actually thinking about it, running an rim world outpost like Cloud City could be a pretty cool game with loads of story potential.

Exactly, Lando has wealth, but it comes with lots of obligation

Though, how much wealth does he have when he leaves Cloud City and joins the gang?

He probably had the Obligation "sold out Han Solo", owed to the berserking wookie with whom he was sharing the Falcon LITERALLY breathing down his neck.

I am sure there were nights when Londo woke up only to see Chewbacca staring him down, claws extended, resisting the urge to shred his throat.

Londo was not freed of obligation, following his departure from Cloud City. Ohhh no

We started our campaign as a firefly-esque one, but it quickly didn't go over well because the players wouldn't take the initiative to find work, ask questions about shipping costs and fees nor plan for such things. So we quickly shifted focus to the story and moving a larger story along and I would reward them in chunks at a time.

I think this game (EotE, AoR and F&D) strongly encourages a sandbox style campaign but sort of breaks down when you add a more structured plot. Or at least it seems to do so for my players.

I have a very different experience.

Sure having a structured story is fine but I do allow for sandbox gaming as well. I keep all options upen but there is always a larger narrative infused within the games we play.

Also I really don't understand how it could be because of to the system (this or any other) that a certain playstyle breaks down. Can you explain what you mean there?

We started our campaign as a firefly-esque one, but it quickly didn't go over well because the players wouldn't take the initiative to find work, ask questions about shipping costs and fees nor plan for such things. So we quickly shifted focus to the story and moving a larger story along and I would reward them in chunks at a time.

I think this game (EotE, AoR and F&D) strongly encourages a sandbox style campaign but sort of breaks down when you add a more structured plot. Or at least it seems to do so for my players.

I have a very different experience.

Sure having a structured story is fine but I do allow for sandbox gaming as well. I keep all options upen but there is always a larger narrative infused within the games we play.

Also I really don't understand how it could be because of to the system (this or any other) that a certain playstyle breaks down. Can you explain what you mean there?

My takeaway is that it's harder to plan a specific, structured plot, due to the wide-ranging nature of starship crews and their many means of conflict resolution. It's much harder to limit players' options and so control the potential outcomes. The dice are a big part of that: you might assign a ridiculously high difficulty to a Charm check to dissuade a crew of marauders from doing you harm, but if your player pulls off a success with five Advantage and two Triumphs, it's hard to say, "No, it doesn't work."

As for the structured part, I've run into that before. One of my games is currently in what I consider the third act (of a four act structure) of the current metaplot, when I feel like the group should be focused on the overarching threat rather than their own Obligations. However, since everyone still has so much of their own stories left to deal with -- find a Force mentor, liberate their droid "siblings," save their slicer guild from the Black Sun -- they've been deliberately advancing the metaplot in such a way that they can realistically take a few days between major actions to take care of personal business.

It definitely helps that I'm perfectly okay with that, since I specifically said in Session Zero that I would make time for everyone's personal arc. But if I were the type of GM who wanted to stress the A-plot that actively involves everyone rather than the B-plots that push one person into the spotlight, I imagine it would get tiring pretty fast. The urge to interrupt their stuff with my story would be strong, which would then put me in opposition to my players. I actually ran into that with a Halo RPG that my friends and I designed and played, and I decided to end the campaign when their characters' personal stories finally made them break away completely from the main story I was trying to tell. (Fortunately, they were okay with that.)

So yeah, as fun as this system is and as much as it matches my personal style, it's not necessarily for everyone.

We started our campaign as a firefly-esque one, but it quickly didn't go over well because the players wouldn't take the initiative to find work, ask questions about shipping costs and fees nor plan for such things. So we quickly shifted focus to the story and moving a larger story along and I would reward them in chunks at a time.

I think this game (EotE, AoR and F&D) strongly encourages a sandbox style campaign but sort of breaks down when you add a more structured plot. Or at least it seems to do so for my players.

I have a very different experience.

Sure having a structured story is fine but I do allow for sandbox gaming as well. I keep all options upen but there is always a larger narrative infused within the games we play.

Also I really don't understand how it could be because of to the system (this or any other) that a certain playstyle breaks down. Can you explain what you mean there?

My takeaway is that it's harder to plan a specific, structured plot, due to the wide-ranging nature of starship crews and their many means of conflict resolution. It's much harder to limit players' options and so control the potential outcomes. The dice are a big part of that: you might assign a ridiculously high difficulty to a Charm check to dissuade a crew of marauders from doing you harm, but if your player pulls off a success with five Advantage and two Triumphs, it's hard to say, "No, it doesn't work."

As for the structured part, I've run into that before. One of my games is currently in what I consider the third act (of a four act structure) of the current metaplot, when I feel like the group should be focused on the overarching threat rather than their own Obligations. However, since everyone still has so much of their own stories left to deal with -- find a Force mentor, liberate their droid "siblings," save their slicer guild from the Black Sun -- they've been deliberately advancing the metaplot in such a way that they can realistically take a few days between major actions to take care of personal business.

It definitely helps that I'm perfectly okay with that, since I specifically said in Session Zero that I would make time for everyone's personal arc. But if I were the type of GM who wanted to stress the A-plot that actively involves everyone rather than the B-plots that push one person into the spotlight, I imagine it would get tiring pretty fast. The urge to interrupt their stuff with my story would be strong, which would then put me in opposition to my players. I actually ran into that with a Halo RPG that my friends and I designed and played, and I decided to end the campaign when their characters' personal stories finally made them break away completely from the main story I was trying to tell. (Fortunately, they were okay with that.)

So yeah, as fun as this system is and as much as it matches my personal style, it's not necessarily for everyone.

The "planning" you're talking about is a bad GM habit anyway, in my opinion. In my mind the best GM knows the cardinal direction he wants the game to move in and steers the players that way while giving them the illusion that they are blazing their own trail, rather than pulling them along by the wrist. Improvisation is where GMs really have a chance to shine anyway.

I guess I am not that hung up on the complete planning either. If something needs to happen to the crew in order to get a certain plot point moving it can happen pretty much anywhere... Sure space is big but the imagination can be even bigger at times.

That means that sometimes I can follow a holocron like approach where I have an encounter ready to be injected into any given location or situation and other times I have an entire situation worked out where my players are occupied within a certain place for a few sessions. Both situations work for me...

But I am thankfully not playing with groups that at the start of a session ignore the breadcrumbs and say... "I feel like going to hoth, what do you guys think?" and leave me sitting there with hours of prepared materials not being used. They understand the collaberative nature of the system well enough to know that the GM wants to have a good time as well...

Sure they go off the rails at times (quite often actually) but I usually can improvise well enough to have the party feel as if the sky really is the limit, all the while slowly directing them back to where they need to be.

We started our campaign as a firefly-esque one, but it quickly didn't go over well because the players wouldn't take the initiative to find work, ask questions about shipping costs and fees nor plan for such things. So we quickly shifted focus to the story and moving a larger story along and I would reward them in chunks at a time.

I think this game (EotE, AoR and F&D) strongly encourages a sandbox style campaign but sort of breaks down when you add a more structured plot. Or at least it seems to do so for my players.

I have a very different experience.

Sure having a structured story is fine but I do allow for sandbox gaming as well. I keep all options upen but there is always a larger narrative infused within the games we play.

Also I really don't understand how it could be because of to the system (this or any other) that a certain playstyle breaks down. Can you explain what you mean there?

Well, I don't mean in general, just with regards to our group, I should have prefaced that. My players often flounder when left to their own devices. They will not even pursue Obligations or Motivation clues unless they get specific nudging from me. Often when their obligation has come up for the 3rd time and they have to deal with it or the magnitude increases. And as a GM I am always reading and rereading sources for how to perform my job better, so I am always looking for ways to engage them in the full experience. The core rulebooks are great, I love this system and I personally love a nice blend of sandbox and structure. This system seems to encourage sandbox style play and encourage players to go off the rails to some degree by offering mechanical options to ease them into it via obligation, duty, motivation, and morality. Yet if you have players that do not really engage those mechanics then you need to add a structured plot. I feel if you are just sticking with a structured plot you are effectively loosing out on other aspects of the game.

I do what I can with the group I have and we typically always have a blast so it's never really been a problem. It's just been my observation that there is always this push and pull between sandbox and structure, more so than in other game systems.

Man, I would go crazy at your table. While I enjoy the linear, scripted A->B->C->D plots, I also like some room to just breath too. Gimmie some time at the start before we find the droid with the stolen plans to go get into trouble on my own.

Not sure if you posted this in regards to my post directly above it, or in regards to some post further up.

But yeah, it's not my ideal situation. I'm much more inclined to let the players help direct the flow of the game, but my players are just....well, petrified of "being put on the spot" and being asked to do things. They really just like to be given a task, and they can just solve it. Too much MMORPGing in my opinion. But *shrugs* I've played with these guys for like 15 years. It's just how they are. They try, they really do, but it's not comfortable for them. I'm more the "theater of the mind/improvised acting" kind of mindset when it comes to roleplaying. They are most decidedly not.

I'm all for keeping the players hungry, but there is a very undefined line where it crosses into annoying. In my first and only EotE game we came across a derelict fleet in space from the clone wars. We pressed on with our mission since time was of the essence. Later we were given the opportunity to start building up an outer rim planet by the GM and we bit off despite it being a different direction than our original planned path. So I had the idea to go pick up about 50 to 100 old b1's to use for cheap labor. But when we arrived there was an imperial aligned fleet tractoring the ships into the local sun. It made it harder to buy off on the game after that. Despite being the player most willing to devote his character to the story I felt like I was just along for the ride with a story that was only going go here the GM wanted it to go.

I always like to look at the story as an arc. It can be quite fun to start them starving especially at the beginning of a new game system, but not always. Seeing the party rise out of poverty to be able to worry about other things is one of my favourite things in games. In games we all know I will sometimes offer more riches than the can conceive so more loot or power isn't a driving issue.

An Eon ago I ran a Rolemaster campaign with an experienced group and everybody started out as a 25th level Highlander-style immortal with magic gear (artefact level gear) and tricked out spell trees. Then I tossed them into a morally ambiguous fight against an enslaving mage who threw his tortured and innocent minions at the players as they chased him through shifting dimensions of magic crystal in ceramic ships with technomancy phasing arrays. In the end not a single gold piece was collected nor a single chest looted, yet we had epic fun remembered to this day 25 years later.

That being said, I am new to this system and am going to start a game soon with new players and they are going to be starting out trying to get out of debt (the real question at this point is am I cruel enough to make them owe a Hutt?). However, I don't plan on keeping things down at that level. I want there to be a couple of ship upgrades as we play and where the fight against the Empire becomes the driver of the story.