I've never understood why so many people have such a big problem with a little bit of railroading. Knights of the Old Republic and Mass Effect "railroad" the player quite a bit, and that allows them to tell an excellent, well-oiled story. A GM should be as flexible as their plans allow, but if you have a big, epic story you want to tell in the universe of Star Wars, your players will get more enjoyment out of that than they would if they were allowed to wreck all your plans.

A sane GM would never allow Luke to Charm Palpatine into letting him live.

2 minutes ago, DaverWattra said:

A sane GM would never allow Luke to Charm Palpatine into letting him live.

A sane GM would respond to the attempt by giving Palpatine appropriate stats and talents, allowing Luke to rack up his 2+ dispairs, and having fun with the results.

And Luke did charm Palpatine’s dragon, causing him to do a heel turn and chuck Palpatine over the edge of the railing and skipping the rest of the boss fight completely.

2 minutes ago, Dunefarble said:

A sane GM would respond to the attempt by giving Palpatine appropriate stats and talents, allowing Luke to rack up his 2+ dispairs, and having fun with the results.

Only problem with that is that in this system, for a high-skill character, there's always a pretty decent chance of success (or success with Triumph). If you're really skilled, the absolute worst case difficulty you can ever have still gives you a 1/3 chance of success:

http://game2.ca/eote/?montecarlo=100000#proficiency=5&ability=1&challenge=5&setback=5

And even a beginning character can have a 10% chance at the worst possible check: http://game2.ca/eote/?montecarlo=100000#proficiency=2&ability=2&challenge=5&setback=5

1 minute ago, DaverWattra said:

Only problem with that is that in this system, for a high-skill character, there's always a pretty decent chance of success (or success with Triumph). If you're really skilled, the absolute worst case difficulty you can ever have still gives you a 1/3 chance of success:

http://game2.ca/eote/?montecarlo=100000#proficiency=5&ability=1&challenge=5&setback=5

Technically, you could continue on past 5 Challenge dice if desired. 5 Difficulty is the normal limit, with the Impossible difficulty rules coming into play past that, which state pretty clearly you stop increasing the difficulty and begin upgrading and there is no limit in the game to temporary upgrades of skill or difficulty, so... it could be 20 Challenge dice & 2 Difficulty if the GM wanted to be that stupid.

And that's only taking Palpatine's skill into consideration. He should have a couple of Nobody's Fool, almost certainly some difficulty upgrades for being in a position of power, maybe some upgrades for foresight ("Your charm attempt is exactly as I have forseen!")

One could argue that the tossing of the lightsaber ("I am a Jedi! Like my father before me!") was the result of a failed coercion with a triumph or two that upgraded his charm on Vader.

"I'm gonna threaten the Emperor!"

"...Really? The big bad guy? Leader of the Empire who's been hunting you this whole time and turned the Chosen One to the Dark Side?"

"Yeah!"

"Okaaaaay... ten challenge die. And just go ahead and grab a handful of setback. ...and you fail with dispair."

"But also triumphs!"

"Okay fine, Vader feels guilty as you writhe in pain while the Emperor laughs at your bravado."

".... how guilty are we talking here?"

"Pretty guilty. There may even be tears."

"I roll charm. ....Yes! Success and a double triumph."

"Oh ffs..."

31 minutes ago, Dunefarble said:

A sane GM would respond to the attempt by giving Palpatine appropriate stats and talents, allowing Luke to rack up his 2+ dispairs, and having fun with the results.

And Luke did charm Palpatine’s dragon, causing him to do a heel turn and chuck Palpatine over the edge of the railing and skipping the rest of the boss fight completely.

Bingo. The kind of thinking that "some NPCs are impossible to Charm" is the kind of thinking that takes "It's too late for me, son" as gospel instead of a challenge.

26 minutes ago, DaverWattra said:

Only problem with that is that in this system, for a high-skill character, there's always a pretty decent chance of success (or success with Triumph). If you're really skilled, the absolute worst case difficulty you can ever have still gives you a 1/3 chance of success:

http://game2.ca/eote/?montecarlo=100000#proficiency=5&ability=1&challenge=5&setback=5

That's not the worst case difficulty. Heck, that's not even the worst case difficulty the dice generator will allow:

http://game2.ca/eote/?montecarlo=100000#proficiency=5&ability=1&challenge=5&difficulty=5&setback=5

And you can get even messier from there. As Groggy said, it's a stupid roll...but then, it's the players choice to MAKE that stupid roll. And if he actually SUCCEEDS?! Let's see what we can come up with....

Palpatine already wants Luke to live, albeit as his new apprentice, so we're already off to a flying start. The question is, what are Palpatine's "rules" here, and what ones can we break while still keeping an interesting story?

1. Palpatine must have an apprentice, preferably Luke.
2. Palpatine wants to see the end of the rebellion, today.

You can break one of those rules (and good luck rolling the success + advantages + triumphs to make him break both of them at once) and still come up with something interesting:

1. Luke's eloquence and promise to consider the offer amuses Palpatine, and he grants Luke a stay from "convert to the Dark side or die" so that Palpatine can prove that his father can never return. The Rebellion still must be destroyed, however, so at this point Luke can either accept the results of the Charm and let Palpatine's continued Battle Meditation win the battle and kill his friends, or he can go back to "I'll never join you!"
2. Luke says that he will take Palpatine up on his offer, but won't kill his father and he wants a stay of execution for his friends in the Rebellion. Palpatine offers Luke a choice: preserve Vader or his friends. If the former, a scenario similar to the one above plays out. If the latter, Luke Luke has to kill Vader before he and the Emperor leave on a high priority shuttle that escapes the Death Star's destruction, and the Imperial fleet withdraws in good order. The Rebels won a military victory, but at a heavy cost and the war is far from over. Luke is now in the Emperor's clutches and likely to soon fall to the Dark Side, leaving Leia as the Rebels last hope.

Keep in mind that both of those Charm checks assume that Luke is being sincere, INsincere attempts to sway people are Deception. The reason this distinction is important is because when you're trying to Charm someone completly abhorrent, you either have to lie to them (Deception) or be willing to be somewhat abhorrent yourself.

Put me in the camp of some checks are literally impossible and saying no to a player isn't railroading, it's being realistic with in the context of the in-game universe.

Just now, kaosoe said:

Put me in the camp of some checks are literally impossible and saying no to a player isn't railroading, it's being realistic with in the context of the in-game universe.

Being realistic within the context of the game universe is providing a roll with realistic odds of success.

Saying "it'll never happen" is a fantastic way to block your group from having truly epic campaigns. Sure, odds are that they'll fail, and fail HARD. But epic fails are just as much fun to run.

2 minutes ago, Benjan Meruna said:

Being realistic within the context of the game universe is providing a roll with realistic odds of success.

Saying "it'll never happen" is a fantastic way to block your group from having truly epic campaigns. Sure, odds are that they'll fail, and fail HARD. But epic fails are just as much fun to run.

I don't agree, but it's quite clear we have different styles and expectations.

I like to take those crazy suggestions that would normally be impossible and turn those into larger parts of an adventure. Sometimes those tasks are impossible within the context of a single check, but can be better handled through multiple scenes or as a plot than be woven into the campaign.

It is on the player for making a poor character. They'd probably be happier long-term with a 3/3/3/3/2/2 breakdown rather than pumping up one stat. By the time they hit Dedication and bump that Presence to 4 they'll feel pretty good about that and everything else.

That said, if combat was going to be a big thing in your game, you might have considered giving him a "training" saber. It does pretty low Stun damage, and would allow him to use his preferred stat. But even without that, with the Aiming maneuver and an Accurate blaster, even the lamest klutz can do pretty well in a shootout. Give him something with at least Accurate 1.

I'm iffy on the Boss-Charm thing. It's not a replacement for the Influence power, so I agree it should have little impact on whether or not there is combat at the end. However, the die results could still be used in a tactical way, as if combat had started. Eg: Success and/or Advantage might distract them enough to let someone else get a better tactical position, etc. You should feel somewhat free to wing that so boost dice and/or upgrades are passed around appropriately. The player shouldn't expect the boss to become buddies, but he might "miss a chance to call for reinforcements" or some other effect. The boss might have his hand on the button to "release the rancor", but hesitates giving another PC a chance to shoot the controls.

Wrt social skills, one thing I've been doing for a while (and I noticed FFG has incorporated into the latest adventure) is to give NPCs variable resistances. One NPC might not like being "told what to do", so Coercion wouldn't work (or have serious penalties); but they are susceptible to flattery, so Charm might offer boosts or other upgrades. You should feel free to stack a boss with whatever social resistances make sense. Also, if you have the budget, pick up Far Horizons, it has a great section on social skills, their limits, and how to deal with people overusing them.

10 minutes ago, whafrog said:

Wrt social skills, one thing I've been doing for a while (and I noticed FFG has incorporated into the latest adventure) is to give NPCs variable resistances. One NPC might not like being "told what to do", so Coercion wouldn't work (or have serious penalties); but they are susceptible to flattery, so Charm might offer boosts or other upgrades. You should feel free to stack a boss with whatever social resistances make sense.

This is a great point as well: it's possible that the Boss in question might have been more open to a Negotiation roll. I don't know if the player has any ranks in it, but even 4 green dice would be a decent chance of success in a lot of cases.

Quote

It is on the player for making a poor character. They'd probably be happier long-term with a 3/3/3/3/2/2 breakdown rather than pumping up one stat. By the time they hit Dedication and bump that Presence to 4 they'll feel pretty good about that and everything else.

I try to avoid penalizing specialized players. Some people know what they prefer and want to make a character focused around doing those things instead of just okay at everything. In this case, he went for a character good at many social skills and combat (once he can use the weapon that uses his primary stat). I'd call that a reasonable character, and would try to facilitate that in the way you suggested, giving him a stun saber or Ancient Sword.

11 minutes ago, kaosoe said:

I like to take those crazy suggestions that would normally be impossible and turn those into larger parts of an adventure. Sometimes those tasks are impossible within the context of a single check, but can be better handled through multiple scenes or as a plot than be woven into the campaign.

We might be saying the same thing different ways, here. A single check might not be enough to get the desired result in an of itself, but it can open the door to new possibilities. I think the example I gave earlier was following the Charm roll with a Negotiation roll, for example, and THAT would likely lead to an entirely new adventure for the future.

1 hour ago, GroggyGolem said:

Technically, you could continue on past 5 Challenge dice if desired. 5 Difficulty is the normal limit, with the Impossible difficulty rules coming into play past that, which state pretty clearly you stop increasing the difficulty and begin upgrading and there is no limit in the game to temporary upgrades of skill or difficulty, so... it could be 20 Challenge dice & 2 Difficulty if the GM wanted to be that stupid.

Yeah, I don't like this rule and would never abide by it. It prevents the GM from creating checks that are so difficult that highly skilled players are likely to fail, but which don't have an absurdly high chance of rolling Despair. If a player with 5Y in Knowledge (Education) tries to solve a nearly impossible math problem that no one could realistically solve, that should've have to mean that they roll 5 despairs.

Overall, my outlook on this is: if the outcome of a "check" is obvious and uninteresting, don't roll it. That goes for actions which will obviously succeed. It also goes for actions which will obviously fail, like Luke trying to Charm Palpatine.

19 minutes ago, DaverWattra said:

Yeah, I don't like this rule and would never abide by it. It prevents the GM from creating checks that are so difficult that highly skilled players are likely to fail, but which don't have an absurdly high chance of rolling Despair. If a player with 5Y in Knowledge (Education) tries to solve a nearly impossible math problem that no one could realistically solve, that should've have to mean that they roll 5 despairs.

Overall, my outlook on this is: if the outcome of a "check" is obvious and uninteresting, don't roll it. That goes for actions which will obviously succeed. It also goes for actions which will obviously fail, like Luke trying to Charm Palpatine.

5:15

46 minutes ago, DaverWattra said:

Yeah, I don't like this rule and would never abide by it. It prevents the GM from creating checks that are so difficult that highly skilled players are likely to fail, but which don't have an absurdly high chance of rolling Despair. If a player with 5Y in Knowledge (Education) tries to solve a nearly impossible math problem that no one could realistically solve, that should've have to mean that they roll 5 despairs.

Overall, my outlook on this is: if the outcome of a "check" is obvious and uninteresting, don't roll it. That goes for actions which will obviously succeed. It also goes for actions which will obviously fail, like Luke trying to Charm Palpatine.

The most boring thing a GM can say is "No."

"No, but..." is less boring.

"Sure, but you might regret it," is by far the best in my opinion.

The given scenario is a perfect way to slap the group with Obligation. (Doesn't matter if you are playing F&D). You ruined a Boss' operation and he has you in a bad spot. You manage to have a player "open him up" with conversation, but the Boss still has to cover the damages. Insert an obligation to the Boss. It can break the rules of EotE Obligation, as in it can be paid off and cleared, and it can alos morph into a different Obligation if action to rectify it is not taken. Perhaps they become indebted to the Boss for say 10K Credits. Boss gives them some time to work it off, doing their own thing but looking for monthly payments. Should they miss a payment, maybe the Boss sends an Enforcer. Should the players continue to ignore the Boss and dispatch the Enforcer, the Boss goes another step towards Bounty Hunters. (Wait, did I just use Han Solo's story with Jabba as an Obligation? Yes, yes I did.)

17 minutes ago, Benjan Meruna said:

The most boring thing a GM can say is "No."

"No, but..." is less boring.

"Sure, but you might regret it," is by far the best in my opinion.

But surely the right answer is sometimes "No." PC says "I try to punch the wings off the TIE fighter with my bare hands." You're not going to say "Sure, but you might regret it."

Saying "I try to charm the Sith Lord into letting me go" is an equally absurd thing to attempt in most circumstances, and should be met with a "No" except under weird conditions.

29 minutes ago, DaverWattra said:

But surely the right answer is sometimes "No." PC says "I try to punch the wings off the TIE fighter with my bare hands." You're not going to say "Sure, but you might regret it."

Of course I am! I mean, having a player don a space suit, exit the airlock, close with the TIE fighter to try to punch it...obviously, that would be a series of rolls, and best case scenario is that he still doesn't get the 30+ damage he needs on the Brawl check to do even a single point of damage...but if he got a triumph his splattered corpse across the cockpit glass might temporarily leave the pilot flying blind, crashing into their wingmate and saving the team!

Of course, the player would be dead. But hey, them's the breaks.

On the other hand, trying to Charm a Sith Lord is not impossible, as Dunefarble pointed out. Otherwise, Luke would be dead and the Emperor would still be ruling the galaxy.

38 minutes ago, DaverWattra said:

But surely the right answer is sometimes "No." PC says "I try to punch the wings off the TIE fighter with my bare hands." You're not going to say "Sure, but you might regret it."

Saying "I try to charm the Sith Lord into letting me go" is an equally absurd thing to attempt in most circumstances, and should be met with a "No" except under weird conditions.

You are very kind to your players. Wanna try and punch the wings off a TIE? Really? Alright, so next session is going to be your group's search for a skilled orthopedic surgeon. Or a good cybernetic surgeon.

Want to put out a fire with a grenade, climb a sheer wall, or calm a rancor with conversation? "But that's impossible!" you say! May I direct your attention to page 27? There's a black box there labeled Impossible Tasks that you might want to check out.

There's a difference between attempting to convince your players that something is impossible and flat out telling them 'no, never, no matter what you roll'. If someone really wants to try something crazy heroic, knowing the risks, and you're stopping them from even trying? That's pretty lame, man.

3 hours ago, Benjan Meruna said:

The most boring thing a GM can say is "No."

"No, but..." is less boring.

"Sure, but you might regret it," is by far the best in my opinion.

Sometimes a simple NO really is the best answer a GM can give. Leave it to the player to find a way to make it less boring for himself.

12 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

Sometimes a simple NO really is the best answer a GM can give. Leave it to the player to find a way to make it less boring for himself.

Like find a less boring GM?

Sometimes that might actually be the answer, and sometimes the player really needs to reflect on why his requests are being blocked. If it's a case where his requests are going to hurt the fun of the group, then NO isn't a bad option.

I agree there, especially on things like "I stab the other PCs in their sleep." However, in those cases I don't say no because it's impossible, I say no because I'm kicking them out of the game.

I'm this case, the heinous crime the PC committed was wanting to use a skill exactly the way it was intended to be used. If the other players and GM were really so upset about him getting to contribute for the first time that session, then he needs to find a better group.

12 hours ago, Krodarklorr said:

He got pissy and asked if he should just change his character since he can't talk his way out of major fights and he can't do anything in a fight. Then he proceeds to lie about the amount of credits he found on their bodies, got caught, and got mad when the other PCs gave him a smaller cut of the profits. He then threatened to steal the money back from them at a later date.

Let him try. The PC's will catch and kill him. He gets to make up a new character and you (GM) won't get blamed for assassinating his char. Easy.

Maybe sit down with him and ask him what he wants to get out of his character and give him some advice on what class to play and stuff like that. If he's still a d*** with his new character, kick him.

Maybe he just got frustrated with his character, its kinda galling when you wanna play this bad-ass half jedi- half snowflake character and all you end up doing is failing. (This is why I don't get some old school stuff like picking a class and then rolling your stats, so you end up with the world's dumbest wizard. Gah no thanks.)

On the other hand, this an RPG, not being in an MMO guild. I've heard of some groups playing like that, everybody min maxes for their chosen role and god help you if you show up with your gnome barbarian or some odd character idea.