One way to control overly public force use is to simply say "If you do this you gain 5 obligation: Bounty". I mean there is a whole system in place for managing the troubles of characters who are wanted by the Empire after all. Bounty Hunters are a lot more numerous than inquisitors too.

Also, let us not forget every F&D players dread: Conflict.

After disarming the enemies, what do they do with them? Do they just gun them down mercilessly? Or threaten them? Conflict. They may be stormtroopers, they may be criminals, but killing an unarmed individual is plain and simple murder no matter who they are. It's also highly dishonourable so make sure he or no one else in the party has an honourable motivation or obligation.

He picks up an enemy and tosses them around you say? Conflict since while that is self-defense that is reckless and he is doing something to achieve an easy victory. What was it Yoda said about the quick and easy path? Especially if he just picks them up and lets them take fall damage.

Just because you have the power to do so, doesn't mean you should.

What everyone else has said is also great: Use the autofire rule for minions, if your effecting multiple blasters definitely make it hard for him.

There will be witnesses. Is he willing to kill a civilian because they saw him use the force and most likely will report him to the Empire? If a contact saw them it might make that contact reconsider if they want to be dealing with someone has 'hot' as that Jedi character, that might bring attention to their own business.

Finally, let us not forget another Yoda teaching: A Jedi uses the force for knowledge and defence, never attack. Technically what he is doing is an attack and he is resorting to violence, albeit it disarming violence. If they've not tried another method to get out of their situation he is technically instigating a combat scenario and thus...conflict.

Not everyone worries about Conflict. I have players that just accept Conflict as it comes and don't particularly try to avoid it. They're not Jedi and they don't try to be. I have little doubt that some players might even want to accumulate Conflict since this is the first SW RPG that truly allows for dark side characters.

Morality is kind of a flawed system, because it doesn't tend to settle around a score on the spectrum, but instead tends to either just hit 100 or 0 unless the GM constantly struggles to budge it away from the caps. Any player who does their best not to rack up more than 5 conflict in a session will eventually hit 100 and stay there, and any player who doesn't care if they take more conflict than that basically has no reason to fear conflict at all unless it's an adventure where falling to the dark side means the party kills you.

Conflict is only really a meaningful lever against people who are really concerned with staying light side, which is why I think introducing Obligation into the game to represent how much unwanted attention you've drawn tends to work much better for the purpose of controlling power crazed force users.

Except Obligation is not supposed to work the way you suggest it does. It is a currency "accepted" by player consent in exchange for a benefit, not something assigned as a consequence.

Except Obligation is not supposed to work the way you suggest it does. It is a currency "accepted" by player consent in exchange for a benefit, not something assigned as a consequence.

Yes, they take on the obligation in exchange for the benefit of publicly using force powers. You're right that you can't punish a player for their actions with obligation, but you can tell them that they need to take on obligation to do a certain thing.

If the players say "I'm going to shoot the Hutt" then the DM lets them know that they will take obligation if they proceed with that course of action. If the players decide that it's worth it they can proceed. Likewise if a player says "I'm going to throw the AT-ST!" the DM lets them know that they will take obligation if they do that, and the player can decide if it's worth it.

Of course F&D doesn't technically use the obligation system, but it's a good system for measuring how many people are out to get you, so why not use it to represent the threat of becoming known to the empire? The more obligation the more likely it triggers, when it triggers you get bounty hunters and inquisitors after you. Seems to me like it's the best system to use for that sort of thing.

Except Obligation is not supposed to work the way you suggest it does. It is a currency "accepted" by player consent in exchange for a benefit, not something assigned as a consequence.

Yes, they take on the obligation in exchange for the benefit of publicly using force powers. You're right that you can't punish a player for their actions with obligation, but you can tell them that they need to take on obligation to do a certain thing.

If the players say "I'm going to shoot the Hutt" then the DM lets them know that they will take obligation if they proceed with that course of action. If the players decide that it's worth it they can proceed. Likewise if a player says "I'm going to throw the AT-ST!" the DM lets them know that they will take obligation if they do that, and the player can decide if it's worth it.

Of course F&D doesn't technically use the obligation system, but it's a good system for measuring how many people are out to get you, so why not use it to represent the threat of becoming known to the empire? The more obligation the more likely it triggers, when it triggers you get bounty hunters and inquisitors after you. Seems to me like it's the best system to use for that sort of thing.

I could go to great lengths to try to correct your misconceptions on Obligation, but just don't think you'd listen. Suffice to say that not every in-game complication requires Obligation, and in many cases, Obligation is used to suppress in-game complications. Beyond that, do a search and you can see several threads where I've gone into detail about what Obligation is and what it is not. Or don't...

It's up to everyone to use it as they see fit. Personally I see no issue at all with using Criminal, Blackmail or Bounty obligation to represent the problems you make for yourself when you make an enemy of organizations that can get at you anywhere in the Galaxy. I'm not going to look through your entire post history to find your opinion on the matter, if you don't think Obligation should be used that way just don't. I think if a game table is OK with giving people an obligation if they can't be compelled by Morality alone then why not?

Also, I do play open games, so it's very difficult to have consequences be entirely narrative driven. Characters don't necessarily play with the same GM in the same adventure all the time, but their transgressions have to carry lasting weight. That's why obligation works for that.

I believe there's an armor attachment in KtP, Magnetic Grip or something like that. Could help in this situation. It's fairly cheap if I remember correctly and if your player continues using this technique, then perhaps the enemies should adapt accordingly, equipping their soldiers with such devices.

He has brought up, reasonably, that the power allows for pulling objects off of fixed mountings (ie., Darth Vader in ESB ripping fixtures off of the walls). I don't see a magnetic grip necessarily being any different from bolts in this case.

It should give you a boost or two imo on the resilience check. And it makes naturally picking up the gun again an incidental instead of a maneuver, which means you can do it in the same turn easily, which again forces the force user to keep move active and not drop the weapons down to the ground.

I believe there's an armor attachment in KtP, Magnetic Grip or something like that. Could help in this situation. It's fairly cheap if I remember correctly and if your player continues using this technique, then perhaps the enemies should adapt accordingly, equipping their soldiers with such devices.

He has brought up, reasonably, that the power allows for pulling objects off of fixed mountings (ie., Darth Vader in ESB ripping fixtures off of the walls). I don't see a magnetic grip necessarily being any different from bolts in this case.

It should give you a boost or two imo on the resilience check. And it makes naturally picking up the gun again an incidental instead of a maneuver, which means you can do it in the same turn easily, which again forces the force user to keep move active and not drop the weapons down to the ground.

Why wouldn't you Move the guns up to your maximum distance, assuming you've generated the pips to do so? For example, if enemies are at medium range, is there any reason to not move the guns to you?

It's up to everyone to use it as they see fit. Personally I see no issue at all with using Criminal, Blackmail or Bounty obligation to represent the problems you make for yourself when you make an enemy of organizations that can get at you anywhere in the Galaxy. I'm not going to look through your entire post history to find your opinion on the matter, if you don't think Obligation should be used that way just don't. I think if a game table is OK with giving people an obligation if they can't be compelled by Morality alone then why not?

Also, I do play open games, so it's very difficult to have consequences be entirely narrative driven. Characters don't necessarily play with the same GM in the same adventure all the time, but their transgressions have to carry lasting weight. That's why obligation works for that.

So then maybe you could consider playing in a more structured game setting? Because reading your posts it sounds like these open games you're playing in are just a hot mess.

Leaving out the force users, even leaving out the morality/duty/obligation system entirely, things still have to make sense when you're playing in an established setting(otherwise this is just going to drive players who expect certain common things, right up the wall).

A soldier who constantly ignores orders is eventually going to get a courtmartial. A smuggler who constantly disrupts the operations of a particular cartel may very well get a price on their head large enough to attract every bounty hunter in the galaxy. A rebel cell on a planet who is successful enough and constantly flaunts their activities could potentially end up on the receiving end of a Base Delta Zero operation(it doesn't always take a deathstar to destroy a planet). These are things that have happened within the Star Wars setting across legends and current canon alike.

Even getting back to force use for a moment. If you did have a guy who acted like the equivalent of David Blaine(except using force powers) on the holonet, eventually Darth Vader himself is going to go deal with that character(if you have a GM that allows Darth Vader or equivalent to whatever timeline you're playing in actually get defeated... that would be utterly ridiculous).

Characters in the Star Wars setting need something to act as a consequence to poor decisions to bring any context to the table, otherwise you just might be playing Justice League Adventures or whatever while using FFG's Star Wars setting/rules if you're going to flaunt everything like jedi equivalent of Tony Stark(even then, that has had narrative consequences in the comics and movies from time to time).

By getting into(and possibly sticking to) a more structured campaign, you may very well find that a variety of the concerns you have with the system overall become a non-issue(or at least far less of a concern) when things can come back to haunt a group of players 5 sessions later.

To have it clear. If a PC wants to disarm 3 groups of minions, he has to roll enough Force pips to activate the power and magnitude and range + make a check against their Resilience (for example), difficulty increased by 1 due to the auto-fire rule and get at least 1 success and 4 advantages to activate the auto-fire rule twice. Correct?

It is not that easy....after rolling 10 times (for example) YYGG vs PPPP I did not manage to succeed once in disarming all three groups. Plus in such case my minions would start getting custom grip and I would throw setback there too.

BTW, can the force using PC takea maneuver for the purpose of the opposed Force check in this case to add boost die to the roll?

To have it clear. If a PC wants to disarm 3 groups of minions, he has to roll enough Force pips to activate the power and magnitude and range + make a check against their Resilience (for example), difficulty increased by 1 due to the auto-fire rule and get at least 1 success and 4 advantages to activate the auto-fire rule twice. Correct?

That is one way of running it. It's actually the Control: Damage Upgrade that suggests the Auto-Fire rule, so that is more an option if other solutions don't or won't work. Even the opposed check is optional too, and Athletics or Coordination would be suitable as well.

My method would be to have an opposed check, Discipline v Athletics probably. I would rule the three groups of Minions to be three possible targets. I would increase the Silhouette of the weapons from 0 to 1. Then there would likely be a range requirement too, out to Medium at least and probably Long.

In the end it would be a Hard Discipline check, with at least 4 Force Points to disarm all 3 targets. If they don't have enough Magnitude or Range upgrades then that Point requirement could go up even further.

But then afterwards if those targets are attacked then there is conflict coming the PC's way. And further down the line Bounty Hunters or even Inquisitors will come calling.

For me Minions are cannon fodder, they are there to make the PC's look cool. But there should be consequences in the story for acts that would draw suspicion from citizens of the Galaxy.

So then maybe you could consider playing in a more structured game setting? Because reading your posts it sounds like these open games you're playing in are just a hot mess.

By getting into(and possibly sticking to) a more structured campaign, you may very well find that a variety of the concerns you have with the system overall become a non-issue(or at least far less of a concern) when things can come back to haunt a group of players 5 sessions later.

They actually work really well, they just take into account that it's possible to take a character to an entirely different table, which means a bit more emphasis on record keeping and trying to assign numerical values to things and a bit less reliance on the GM simply remembering exactly what transpired.

The biggest stumbling block for roleplaying games is that people who are interested can't find a reliable group to play with. Even if you have a good group and want to get more people on board, you can only have so many people playing in any given game. Reality is, there are thousands of potential players out there who just can't be bothered to buy $60 books for a game they have no guarantee they'll actually get to play. They will stick to Magic or MMORPGs where they can be sure that there are always people to play with. This whole attitude of "Open games are a mess" or "you need to get into a structured campaign" isn't helping that issue at all. Sure, having a great GM who actually has the time and stamina to run a full campaign is fantastic, but it's unfortunately not the rule with roleplaying games, it's the exception. People just act like it's the rule because the thousands of people who aren't finding a good group obviously aren't going to hang out here and talk about a game they don't get to play.

Open games are an effort to help that situation and get more people to enjoy the game. If you actually want to expand the audience you should help to organize open play, not act like people should avoid it.

So then maybe you could consider playing in a more structured game setting? Because reading your posts it sounds like these open games you're playing in are just a hot mess.

By getting into(and possibly sticking to) a more structured campaign, you may very well find that a variety of the concerns you have with the system overall become a non-issue(or at least far less of a concern) when things can come back to haunt a group of players 5 sessions later.

They actually work really well, they just take into account that it's possible to take a character to an entirely different table, which means a bit more emphasis on record keeping and trying to assign numerical values to things and a bit less reliance on the GM simply remembering exactly what transpired.

The biggest stumbling block for roleplaying games is that people who are interested can't find a reliable group to play with. Even if you have a good group and want to get more people on board, you can only have so many people playing in any given game. Reality is, there are thousands of potential players out there who just can't be bothered to buy $60 books for a game they have no guarantee they'll actually get to play. They will stick to Magic or MMORPGs where they can be sure that there are always people to play with. This whole attitude of "Open games are a mess" or "you need to get into a structured campaign" isn't helping that issue at all. Sure, having a great GM who actually has the time and stamina to run a full campaign is fantastic, but it's unfortunately not the rule with roleplaying games, it's the exception. People just act like it's the rule because the thousands of people who aren't finding a good group obviously aren't going to hang out here and talk about a game they don't get to play.

Open games are an effort to help that situation and get more people to enjoy the game. If you actually want to expand the audience you should help to organize open play, not act like people should avoid it.

And that would be a key reason why some people find the idea of playing the same campaign multiple nights a week to be odd, since no one is going to have the stamina as a GM or player to actually do it regularly and put the effort into having it be everything that it could. Quality over quantity and all. Yes open games can encourage new players to jump in, but when you're getting to the point of extremely powerful characters, long term consequences that need to happen, or correcting player behaviors(like a player always resorting to move to disarm and and everything, or even immediately throwing NPCs into the air to their doom like it doesn't matter), then you need structure.

As I understand it Minion Groups count as a single entity but objects do not, in any case it's up to you the GM to decide if and when an effect affects all the members of the group. This isn't an arbitrary thing it's actually been discussed by the designers for things like grenades (for example if a Minion group is separated by a wall and a grenade goes off you can limit damage to only those that would reasonably be expected to be in the explosion).

What I suggest on disarming Minions is how I handled it in my last session: I generally do not require a Resistance roll when using Force Powers against Minions in Combat so if the PC rolls enough FPs the affect goes off. What I did though is limit it to as many individual weapons that the PC could activate with their magnitude upgrade. In this case it was only one so one of the Stormtroopers lost their blaster rifle and I no longer counted that trooper when creating their dice pool when attacking.

And that would be a key reason why some people find the idea of playing the same campaign multiple nights a week to be odd, since no one is going to have the stamina as a GM or player to actually do it regularly and put the effort into having it be everything that it could. Quality over quantity and all. Yes open games can encourage new players to jump in, but when you're getting to the point of extremely powerful characters, long term consequences that need to happen, or correcting player behaviors(like a player always resorting to move to disarm and and everything, or even immediately throwing NPCs into the air to their doom like it doesn't matter), then you need structure.

Open games have structure, they just rely on a kept record of your character's exploits more than on the GMs memory. There is nothing inherently low quality about open play, just like there is nothing inherently high quality about private play. It's the people who show up and the person running the game who determine the quality.

You have to deal with people who do risky things in ways that carry from table to table, which is a bit tricky with the tools the game naturally provides, but I don't even think it's a bad idea for regular campaigns, because numbers can be a heck of a lot scarier to some people than just the GM deciding how much trouble they're in.

I believe there's an armor attachment in KtP, Magnetic Grip or something like that. Could help in this situation. It's fairly cheap if I remember correctly and if your player continues using this technique, then perhaps the enemies should adapt accordingly, equipping their soldiers with such devices.

He has brought up, reasonably, that the power allows for pulling objects off of fixed mountings (ie., Darth Vader in ESB ripping fixtures off of the walls). I don't see a magnetic grip necessarily being any different from bolts in this case.

It should give you a boost or two imo on the resilience check. And it makes naturally picking up the gun again an incidental instead of a maneuver, which means you can do it in the same turn easily, which again forces the force user to keep move active and not drop the weapons down to the ground.

Why wouldn't you Move the guns up to your maximum distance, assuming you've generated the pips to do so? For example, if enemies are at medium range, is there any reason to not move the guns to you?

An opportunity for further adaptation on behalf of the enemies- If they(your player) pull the guns towards themselves, narrate one of them(the blasters) showing signs of instability, the stormtroopers(or whoever they're pulling these guns away from) had rigged one of their guns to explode. Of course, if they bother to pay close attention to the enemy's equipment prior to the battle, they could pinpoint that instability prior to engaging and take advantage of it.

It's a rather makeshift solution to the problem, but something a particularly resourceful Stormtrooper Sergeant might come up with especially in a situation where the Empire is in very clear decline. If you want to give the players more of a chance before they're faced with a (substantial) explosion, then say one of the Stormtroopers needs to shoot it with their sidearm before it explodes.

Additionally, if you haven't already, you should consider sending out Stormtrooper minion groups with the addition of a Stormtrooper Sergeant. Aside from being Adversary 1, these dudes have some extra abilities that should really help in making Stormtroopers somewhat more threatening.

As I understand it Minion Groups count as a single entity but objects do not, in any case it's up to you the GM to decide if and when an effect affects all the members of the group. This isn't an arbitrary thing it's actually been discussed by the designers for things like grenades (for example if a Minion group is separated by a wall and a grenade goes off you can limit damage to only those that would reasonably be expected to be in the explosion).

What I suggest on disarming Minions is how I handled it in my last session: I generally do not require a Resistance roll when using Force Powers against Minions in Combat so if the PC rolls enough FPs the affect goes off. What I did though is limit it to as many individual weapons that the PC could activate with their magnitude upgrade. In this case it was only one so one of the Stormtroopers lost their blaster rifle and I no longer counted that trooper when creating their dice pool when attacking.

This. Simply split off the disarmed minions in their own group and have them run over and pick up their weapons, while their still-armed compatriots open fire.

1. Move is not the issue here. Its a general poor understanding of the rules.

The problem with move pull is you are not targeting the minion group, you are targeting the weapons. So he needs 1 magnitude rank per weapon to pull them. The second problem is those weapons will end up at the feet of the minions who can pick them back up. Thirdly most encounters will start off at long or medium range and not short.

Typically move is 1 to activate 1 for magnitude 1 for range to disarm people and the weapons end up at the feet. They want the fancy yank the weapon into thier hands or bounce the weapons off the wall they need hurl and make a ranged attack roll after they activate move. For minions that will be a simple attack, for anyone else resist with coordination, athletics or Discipline. Coordination lets you react quickly enough and grab onto the flying object. Athletics lets you keep your grip and Discipline well its all force resisty.

1. Move is not the issue here. Its a general poor understanding of the rules.

The problem with move pull is you are not targeting the minion group, you are targeting the weapons. So he needs 1 magnitude rank per weapon to pull them. The second problem is those weapons will end up at the feet of the minions who can pick them back up. Thirdly most encounters will start off at long or medium range and not short.

Typically move is 1 to activate 1 for magnitude 1 for range to disarm people and the weapons end up at the feet. They want the fancy yank the weapon into thier hands or bounce the weapons off the wall they need hurl and make a ranged attack roll after they activate move. For minions that will be a simple attack, for anyone else resist with coordination, athletics or Discipline. Coordination lets you react quickly enough and grab onto the flying object. Athletics lets you keep your grip and Discipline well its all force resisty.

I've searched all the books for Disarm and unless I missed something there isn't an actual RAW for it. Can anyone find anything?

Unless there is an actual RAW that covers this there is no reason to assume the weapon drops to the Target's feet rather than be anywhere withing short range of the target, it isn't an Threat or Advantage result where the person accidentally drops their weapon it's a Move ability that either bats or yanks the weapon out the Target's hands. So it would make sense to me that the weapon would go flying. The FU'er can even retain control of the object. If this is the case it will require the target to use a maneuver (and likely move out of Cover if they are in it) to get to the weapon and another to pick it up. A Minion would need either two Turns or sacrifice their Action to do this (or be order by an NPC with, I can't remember the Talent's name). I suppose they could take Damage but that's unlikely.

An opportunity for further adaptation on behalf of the enemies- If they(your player) pull the guns towards themselves, narrate one of them(the blasters) showing signs of instability, the stormtroopers(or whoever they're pulling these guns away from) had rigged one of their guns to explode. Of course, if they bother to pay close attention to the enemy's equipment prior to the battle, they could pinpoint that instability prior to engaging and take advantage of it.

Naw, do it as an explosive type of gene-lock. The Sergeants have gotten tired of people stealing weapons from downed troopers, so they rig theirs with gene-locks that will cause the weapons to effectively turn into Thermal Detonators if they are moved more than Short distance away from them.

I believe there's an armor attachment in KtP, Magnetic Grip or something like that. Could help in this situation. It's fairly cheap if I remember correctly and if your player continues using this technique, then perhaps the enemies should adapt accordingly, equipping their soldiers with such devices.

He has brought up, reasonably, that the power allows for pulling objects off of fixed mountings (ie., Darth Vader in ESB ripping fixtures off of the walls). I don't see a magnetic grip necessarily being any different from bolts in this case.

It should give you a boost or two imo on the resilience check. And it makes naturally picking up the gun again an incidental instead of a maneuver, which means you can do it in the same turn easily, which again forces the force user to keep move active and not drop the weapons down to the ground.

Why wouldn't you Move the guns up to your maximum distance, assuming you've generated the pips to do so? For example, if enemies are at medium range, is there any reason to not move the guns to you?

Speed of the movement. Description says slow unless you spend an action for a range combat check to use them as projectiles, but in that case it either combines a disciplined check to fire and an opposed discipline vs resilience/discipline check. Which some GMs might rule as two actions and thus taking two turns or increase the difficulty in some kind.

And btw, I like the general idea. It just that the rules don't make it that easy even when they are a little vague on the combination of high speed movement, resistance checks against move and speed of the movement in general. Grabbing 12 guns from the hands of 12 stormtroopers in 1 minion group is certainly already a big feature, using autofire on all 12 guns to shoot them away at high speed … well, I guess Vader even would keep the weapons rather slow if the pulls them all away, even when he certainly has the needed force dice to pull it off without problems in the slow away.

Two cents: Minions don't get opposed checks against the force unless it's in the power description. They're minions, and the opposed roll rules only specify PCs and Nemesis NPCs, occasionally important named Rivals.

Also the auto fire rules are for using multiple objects to make an attack, which disarming them is not. If they have the necessary Control upgrade and Magnitude and enough points to activate them, and are in the correct range, they should succeed

Two cents: Minions don't get opposed checks against the force unless it's in the power description. They're minions, and the opposed roll rules only specify PCs and Nemesis NPCs, occasionally important named Rivals.

Also the auto fire rules are for using multiple objects to make an attack, which disarming them is not. If they have the necessary Control upgrade and Magnitude and enough points to activate them, and are in the correct range, they should succeed

I don't really agree that minions should never get a roll against force checks, because that tends to turn half the force powers in the game into the "Last Man Standing" signature ability once you get a few force ratings.