Last session, while they were supposed to be negotiating a reward with rather belligerent Hutt, one of my PCs got annoyed and started yelling back at the Hutt. The Hutt had his Gamorean guards restrain that character. When this happened, another one of my PCs decided to pull a blaster on the Gamoreans. My initial instinct was to have the Gamorean guards butcher the party as pulling a gun in the presence of a Hutt, who is surrounded by his entire house guard is a suicidal level of dumb Problem is that this was towards the end of the session; my players were tired, I was tired, everyone was tired (well except for the guy who thought it was a good idea to pull a blaster). I didn't have the energy for another combat, I had expected to be wrapping the session up here and to set the party up with their next lead on a job, I was not expecting hostile player actions at this point. I know that I should have just wrapped up the session on a "cliff-hanger" type moment once the blaster was pulled, but like I said, I was tired and not expecting in the slightest to have to deal with hostile player actions. Instead of wrapping it up I rolled initiative and instantly regretted it. Thankfully, the parties' face PC rolled well and tried to diffuse the situation. I let him. After he managed to negotiate a very uneasy truce, that involved confiscating some much loved weapons, and some apologies to the Hutt, I called the session.

I am very unhappy with how this went. I wish I had called the session when the blaster was drawn and started the next session with that combat. The combat would have been pretty **** hard; 12 or so Gamoreans most of whom would have been able to engage with their vibro-axes within one turn. I would have focused on the PC who drew the gun and ignored PCs who were attempting to diffuse, escape or surrender. PC would be knocked out (at the very least) and the rest of the party would never be rude to a Hutt ever again.

Instead, I feel like I have let them off easy and that this player (who is prone to dumb murder hobo behaviour; pulling guns on Hutts inside their palaces, stopping in the middle of a chase to loot bodies, trying to pick fights with NPCs cos he wants their weapons for himself, etc.). I have spoken to this player about his murder hobo tendencies and I think that aspect is resolved, but I still feel like his character needs some more in game repercussions for what was a really dumb move. I have been toying with the following idea; Seen as this particular PC is a droid, he frequently gets told in cantinas that "we don't serve your kind in here!" and has to wait outside with the other PC droid. This will inevitably happen next session. When it does, I was going to have the droids jumped by Gamoreans who want to get on their boss' good side. Seen as neither of these PCs are good at hand-to-hand, the Gamoreans will more than likely win. The murder-hobo droid will be taken back to the Hutt as a "gift" and the other droid PC will be thrown in the trash near by, to be found and repaired by the party. The captured droid will be out of commission for the session. I will have an NPC ally who will be there just in time for that player to control him, but if they want that PC back they will have to track him down and get him back from the Hutt.

I know there are obvious problems with this, mainly forcing a player to play an NPC instead of his own character, among other things. My main goal is to reinforce the idea of choice and consequence in my game world, something which I very much like to have. After that last session, I feel like I made the consequences a little too easy and it has made me feel like the world is inconsistent. I want to restore balance. Any suggestions/feedback/ideas I can steal?

One roll combat resolution is an option. If I want to speed things up, or stack lots of encounters in a session in order to stress resources I use them for that as well. The rolls are insanely hard and I usually base Difficulty around what the primary attack dice pool is, modified by anyone with some ranks of Adversary, modified by a DP flip.

It isn't about 'winning' the roll. The PCs will likely 'fail'. All that means is uncancelled Threat can mean Strain suffered or use them in place of Advantages and have it = a critical. Uncancelled Failures = Wounds, and Despair can also be crits, broken stuff, or whatever other dastardly things come to mind.

The point of it is every time muderbot loses his sh*t, everyone suffers, and likely everyone will take care of murdebot's tendencies at some point.

42 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

One roll combat resolution is an option. If I want to speed things up, or stack lots of encounters in a session in order to stress resources I use them for that as well. The rolls are insanely hard and I usually base Difficulty around what the primary attack dice pool is, modified by anyone with some ranks of Adversary, modified by a DP flip.

It isn't about 'winning' the roll. The PCs will likely 'fail'. All that means is uncancelled Threat can mean Strain suffered or use them in place of Advantages and have it = a critical. Uncancelled Failures = Wounds, and Despair can also be crits, broken stuff, or whatever other dastardly things come to mind.

The point of it is every time muderbot loses his sh*t, everyone suffers, and likely everyone will take care of murdebot's tendencies at some point.

That one roll solution would have been perfect if I had known about it sooner. Is that a home rule or is it in one of the books? When you are setting the difficulty do you mean like an opposed roll? eg. Gamoreans rolling YYYGG for Melee would make the diff RRRPP? Sounds like a great way to pack in more combat encounters

I still need to find a way to have the murderbot's actions cause a little more party suffering post-Hutt meeting

The basic idea is in the GM section under alternative rules.

Your dice pool is correct, and if there are Rivals or whatever that have some Adversary I'd kick it up to RRRRP, and then probably RRRRR cause I use DPs. Which you describe them all as having Vibro axes so the outcome of even that RRRRR pool and what I suggest would likely still be less painful than all those vibro axes in a combat encounter.

Post meeting issue could just be Obligation in the form of a bounty or something. Then you can spring the one combat roll/bounty hunters lookin to collect dice roll on them from time to time until they reconcile it.

Remember that one bounty hunter that pulled a thermal detonator on Jaba? Jaba basically laughed and said I like your moxy kid. You could handle the occasional situation like that. The hutt knows he's not in danger but it could impress the hutt that the character has enough cojones to pull a stunt like that. Granted it'd probably only work once or twice before the hutt get's bored with the PC's antics, but it's a decent out for the occasional slip up.

4 hours ago, Ahrimon said:

Remember that one bounty hunter that pulled a thermal detonator on Jaba? Jaba basically laughed and said I like your moxy kid. You could handle the occasional situation like that. The hutt knows he's not in danger but it could impress the hutt that the character has enough cojones to pull a stunt like that. Granted it'd probably only work once or twice before the hutt get's bored with the PC's antics, but it's a decent out for the occasional slip up.

Problem is that he ain't that kind of Hutt. Trying to establish a bitter violent and resentful Hutt and not attacking the party in the above scenario is making him look bad. Need to find a way to have him retaliate, and to show consequences to my players.

I think that designing an encounter to take out the PC for the rest of the session goes too far in enforcing consequences.

The next time this PC goes to the Hutt's residence the guards know the PC and take all his weapons away.

You can also have the story spread - word gets around the PC pulled a blaster on the Hutt. This may give him a Boost in interacting with those who would respect such a move. A Setback when interacting with those who think that's reckless (or that the droid's programming is faulty). This could mean that the PC has to check all his weapons when entering establishments that know of this reputation. Maybe give some enemies a Boost on future initiative checks because they know the PCs reputation and are vigilant against sudden acts of violence.

All of this really depends on the PC in question. If someone is engaging in behavior just to be a pain in the @$$. That's an out of game issue the GM needs to address out of game with that PC. If they're engaging in that behavior because that's how they want to play their character, and they're adult enough to accept the consequences then I say roll with it. Give them the Obligation, shoot at them with the BHs on them consistently, etc.

We had a guy in our 5E campaign who played the fly in the ointment kind of character. When things got tough he was perfectly fine with us abandoning him to die, and his opinion was he'd leave himself behind as well. I played my Goody McGooderson cleric like I was supposed to, and saved his @$$ repeatedly, right up until I had to make a choice between him and another PC....he re-rolled. Point being in cases where the player in question accepts consequences gaming out their end can be fun and oh so rewarding for the other PCs at the table.

My first thought is that the group handled the situation correctly (except for the overly aggressive droid. But you know, those blasted contraptions will end up killing you if you don't watch them too closely. You DO need to wipe their memories from time to time, you know).

As a way to have a "harmless" but very scary moment for the player in question, start the next session with the Hutt grumbling about the defective droid and how the poor beleaguered group can't maintain their defective droid. Have the Hutt offer to purchase the malfunctioning droid (at an insulting low price) with the promise to "fix" the droid's programming permanently.

Let the rest of the PC's figure out what to do next. If they're like the group I play with, they'll politely decline and promise to "fix the droid themselves."

You would need to be prepared to take over the PC as an NPC and invite the murder hobo player to roll up a replacement character, if the group decides to "stick it to the player."

It's an option and a pretty hard one. But we had a similar situation arise out of our campaign and the overly aggressive and errant PC decision cost our group a Character and one very nice space ship. I miss that ship a lot. So I don't think it's inappropriate for there to be really harmful consequences for very bad decisions. Heaven knows, our group has paid the price and there will be other repercussions in the future too.

Well, situations like these might result in Obligation for the involved parties, might they not? And we all know what can happen, when you collect Obligation faster than you can get rid of it and it surpasses, say 100.

17 hours ago, Mark Caliber said:

My first thought is that the group handled the situation correctly (except for the overly aggressive droid. But you know, those blasted contraptions will end up killing you if you don't watch them too closely. You DO need to wipe their memories from time to time, you know).

As a way to have a "harmless" but very scary moment for the player in question, start the next session with the Hutt grumbling about the defective droid and how the poor beleaguered group can't maintain their defective droid. Have the Hutt offer to purchase the malfunctioning droid (at an insulting low price) with the promise to "fix" the droid's programming permanently.

Let the rest of the PC's figure out what to do next. If they're like the group I play with, they'll politely decline and promise to "fix the droid themselves."

You would need to be prepared to take over the PC as an NPC and invite the murder hobo player to roll up a replacement character, if the group decides to "stick it to the player."

I have yet to play in a group in which the droid would not actually stick it to his ex-comrades. ;-)

Besides, this is indeed perfect for an obligation with the same premise. The Hutt demands the droid to to fixed to keep business with the group or proof that this personality quirk is actually beneficial. And if the players have other obligations with the hut, this one can become quite pressing as its blocking dealing with all the other problems which might come up with those.

I think that your situation played out "perfectly". The 'face' stepped in and did what he does best, just as it should be. If there's one thing this narrative play teaches, it is to "roll with it.", whether it be dice results or the player's actions. I'd say the Hutt (after some reflection) "likes their moxie" (My kind of Scum!!!) and gives them a job. Only, it's a suicide mission no one else would take. In the movie Scarface, the cocky underling Cubans get sent into a bloodbath with some dangerous Colombians. Two of them actually come out alive with the money AND the cocaine. The boss took notice of them after that. The expendable hotheads actually did it and the boss made out well. Give the Hutt some credit, he knows how to handle these hot-headed characters. After all, he's been around a long time.

One rule to follow as GM is to never set the PC's up with someone you don't intend for them to tangle with. If you want zero-chance of an entanglement, then don't have the meeting. Do it through underlings or hologram. They argue back, screen goes off. Underling leaves.

Sounds to me like you have a fine plan to deal with it. But depending on the personality of the player who's Droid character is about to get ganked, you may need to get their thumbs up first.

Pm'ed ya.. so your other players can't see my suggestions

On 4/6/2017 at 0:28 PM, Ryoden said:

Sounds to me like you have a fine plan to deal with it. But depending on the personality of the player who's Droid character is about to get ganked, you may need to get their thumbs up first.

Getting "Ganked" by a Hutt's crew could mean something else to a droid entirely. After all, what are cybernetics, but droid parts?

On 05/04/2017 at 11:27 PM, DurosSpacer said:

I think that your situation played out "perfectly". The 'face' stepped in and did what he does best, just as it should be. If there's one thing this narrative play teaches, it is to "roll with it.", whether it be dice results or the player's actions. I'd say the Hutt (after some reflection) "likes their moxie" (My kind of Scum!!!) and gives them a job. Only, it's a suicide mission no one else would take. In the movie Scarface, the cocky underling Cubans get sent into a bloodbath with some dangerous Colombians. Two of them actually come out alive with the money AND the cocaine. The boss took notice of them after that. The expendable hotheads actually did it and the boss made out well. Give the Hutt some credit, he knows how to handle these hot-headed characters. After all, he's been around a long time.

One rule to follow as GM is to never set the PC's up with someone you don't intend for them to tangle with. If you want zero-chance of an entanglement, then don't have the meeting. Do it through underlings or hologram. They argue back, screen goes off. Underling leaves.

As I said previously, this is not that kind of Hutt. He is a lot more paranoid and belligerent than that, hence why I'm not happy with how the situation panned out. I am aware that I should never put an NPC down without expecting some chance of confrontation. It was very hard to expect a PC to try pick a fight like this in the moment where I was literally in the process of wrapping up the session. This little negotiation was structurally kind of an "epilogue" scene to the last two sessions, where the next job/quest/whatever was to be set up. That, combined with it being the late in the night, with most at the table being tired and about 5 beers in, I really was not prepared for someone to try pick a fight.

I'm still toying with ideas on this. I really don't like the "My kind of scum/I like your moxie" solution. In my opinion, it makes the Hutt look weak and would encourage players to pull guns on things they probably shouldn't in the future. I want there to be dire repercussions to this situation. I have some more ideas on this, aside from "ganking" the offending PC now but I am still unsure of the execution.

Oh and by the way; in case I wasn't clear in the OP, I am not killing the PC; he is essentially being captured. Playing a NPC for the session, who is aiding the party in the recovery of the droid seems like an ok enough solution to me. I get it is kind of harsh, but I don't plan on having him be NPCed for too long. Half a session at the very most. It still does trouble me though; kind of spits in the face of player autonomy a little bit

You don't have to force the issue through Deus Ex Machina.

Why not run the scenario just as you described. Have them go to a cantina to sign on to a new job. Tell the Droid character 'We don't serve your kind here" and make him wait outside.

Tell the players inside that the place is crowded and the music is stupid loud. But the client is insistent on meeting there. (He is a straw man working for the Hutt. There is no job, this is just a set up to isolate the Droid)

The Hutt agents activate a com scrambler, then start the combat outside.

If the Droid calls for help from the party not only is is affected by the scrambler but they also have to make Difficult perception checks upgraded and setbacked to notice that their com links are flashing (Crowded and Loud inside)

If the droid tries to get inside himself, then the bouncers forcibly keep him out (they too have been hired by the Hutt not to help take him out but to just stand by)

The party meanwhile can be making perception checks to notice the sound of blaster fire, vigilance checks to notice that the client is stringing them along or streetwise checks notice the feel of a setup or mechanics checks to realize a com scrambler is affecting the vid-screens, music ect.

You get to send the message that the Hutt is not pleased with the party and the Droid in particular but you dont have to "Take" his character.

14 minutes ago, Ryoden said:

You don't have to force the issue through Deus Ex Machina.

Why not run the scenario just as you described. Have them go to a cantina to sign on to a new job. Tell the Droid character 'We don't serve your kind here" and make him wait outside.

Tell the players inside that the place is crowded and the music is stupid loud. But the client is insistent on meeting there. (He is a straw man working for the Hutt. There is no job, this is just a set up to isolate the Droid)

The Hutt agents activate a com scrambler, then start the combat outside.

If the Droid calls for help from the party not only is is affected by the scrambler but they also have to make Difficult perception checks upgraded and setbacked to notice that their com links are flashing (Crowded and Loud inside)

If the droid tries to get inside himself, then the bouncers forcibly keep him out (they too have been hired by the Hutt not to help take him out but to just stand by)

The party meanwhile can be making perception checks to notice the sound of blaster fire, vigilance checks to notice that the client is stringing them along or streetwise checks notice the feel of a setup or mechanics checks to realize a com scrambler is affecting the vid-screens, music ect.

You get to send the message that the Hutt is not pleased with the party and the Droid in particular but you dont have to "Take" his character.

There is narrative reasons for it being more abrupt and less planned. The Gamorean goons are doing what they think their boss would want them to, not what their boss would want. Hard to go into without unraveling a lot of plot

1 minute ago, McHydesinyourpants said:

There is narrative reasons for it being more abrupt and less planned. The Gamorean goons are doing what they think their boss would want them to, not what their boss would want. Hard to go into without unraveling a lot of plot

Ok, then how about this?

The two Droid PC's are waiting outside and the gang of Gamoreans walk by. One of them points and says something to the others (If either of your Droid PC's has a language translator they understand that the one pointing says "hey, isn't that the droid that pointed his blaster at the boss? Yeah it is, Lets teach him a lesson" They proceed to do exactly that.

Droid PC 2 could either engage the Gamoreans or try to get help from the rest of the party. (The cantina could still have a comlink scrambler on simply as a service to it's patrons. You can talk here and no one will listen sort of thing)

Instead of the contact being a straw man he could just be increasingly paranoid. Gives the face something to do. "No, no, don't mind my burly fellows they take care of skirmishes like these all the time. Now, we were discussing terms correct?"

Point being that you could still have the Gamoreans attack but not require the Player to be without his character.

4 minutes ago, Ryoden said:

Ok, then how about this?

The two Droid PC's are waiting outside and the gang of Gamoreans walk by. One of them points and says something to the others (If either of your Droid PC's has a language translator they understand that the one pointing says "hey, isn't that the droid that pointed his blaster at the boss? Yeah it is, Lets teach him a lesson" They proceed to do exactly that.

Droid PC 2 could either engage the Gamoreans or try to get help from the rest of the party. (The cantina could still have a comlink scrambler on simply as a service to it's patrons. You can talk here and no one will listen sort of thing)

Instead of the contact being a straw man he could just be increasingly paranoid. Gives the face something to do. "No, no, don't mind my burly fellows they take care of skirmishes like these all the time. Now, we were discussing terms correct?"

Point being that you could still have the Gamoreans attack but not require the Player to be without his character.

That looks pretty good actually. I think the other droid will stand and fight though., which does leave potential for the two to go down. Gamoreans are brawlers and these droids are shooters. I think I will use perception checks etc. to allow the party potential to intervene. Won't be as harsh

To be honest, I was expecting the fight with the Gamoreans to go either way. I like to account for the potential loss as well, hence the NPC scenario.

The Gamoreans wouldn't necessarily take the entire droid with them. Maybe just the arm holding the weapon.

I see two possible outcomes from this. The first is that the Gamoreans win. In winning they do a few critical injuries to the PCs. You can roll for the crit behind a DM screen and say "How bout that I rolled a 103. The Big gamorean chops your arm off picks it and the offensive blaster still clutched in its hand up, and they all leave"

The PC's will soon get repaired and will now want to hunt down the missing arm and blaster. This will be a fine opportunity for the droid to upgrade to a better arm and will make a great opportunity for you to present your "bitter violent and resentful Hutt" as he should be, rather than when the face took him off guard like last time.

The other outcome is that the PC's win the fight. This is gold because once your "bitter violent and resentful Hutt" finds out that the party wasted a group of his mooks, regardless of the "very uneasy truce" made, will put out a hefty hit on the party. Thats GMing gold right there.

If you don't roll behind a screen then flip a destiny point and declare that you rolled a 103

On 4/3/2017 at 8:14 PM, McHydesinyourpants said:

Instead, I feel like I have let them off easy and that this player (who is prone to dumb murder hobo behaviour; pulling guns on Hutts inside their palaces, stopping in the middle of a chase to loot bodies, trying to pick fights with NPCs cos he wants their weapons for himself, etc.). I have spoken to this player about his murder hobo tendencies and I think that aspect is resolved, but I still feel like his character needs some more in game repercussions for what was a really dumb move.

Assuming everybody at the table is OK with a more gritty game and that players are willing to accept harsh in game consequences for overly aggressive & foolish behavior, I would actually take it one step further.

PCs are heading for the Cantina, and just as they are about to enter "BLAM!!!", their aggressive droid companion is hit with disrupter rifle fire from a roof top at long range. The assassin makes little effort to hide himself/herself after firing the weapon, instead calmly dissembles the weapon, and leaves. At some point in the very near future, the PCs receive a note, whether it be a simple courier delivering a datapad, or a text message over the com link, with the message of "That should remove any potential complications of our negotiations going forward. Signed Your Friend the Hutt."

Basically, you don't pull a blaster on a Hutt in his home surrounded by his guards without consequences.

9 hours ago, Magnus Arcanus said:

Assuming everybody at the table is OK with a more gritty game and that players are willing to accept harsh in game consequences for overly aggressive & foolish behavior, I would actually take it one step further.

PCs are heading for the Cantina, and just as they are about to enter "BLAM!!!", their aggressive droid companion is hit with disrupter rifle fire from a roof top at long range. The assassin makes little effort to hide himself/herself after firing the weapon, instead calmly dissembles the weapon, and leaves. At some point in the very near future, the PCs receive a note, whether it be a simple courier delivering a datapad, or a text message over the com link, with the message of "That should remove any potential complications of our negotiations going forward. Signed Your Friend the Hutt."

Basically, you don't pull a blaster on a Hutt in his home surrounded by his guards without consequences.

You know I actually really like this as an idea. It is so brutal and would be a great way to introduce a new Assassin antagonist to my campaign universe It might be too harsh though to take out an PC like that. If I were a player in a game where this happened to me, I would be equally impressed and pissed off

11 hours ago, Ryoden said:

The Gamoreans wouldn't necessarily take the entire droid with them. Maybe just the arm holding the weapon.

I see two possible outcomes from this. The first is that the Gamoreans win. In winning they do a few critical injuries to the PCs. You can roll for the crit behind a DM screen and say "How bout that I rolled a 103. The Big gamorean chops your arm off picks it and the offensive blaster still clutched in its hand up, and they all leave"

The PC's will soon get repaired and will now want to hunt down the missing arm and blaster. This will be a fine opportunity for the droid to upgrade to a better arm and will make a great opportunity for you to present your "bitter violent and resentful Hutt" as he should be, rather than when the face took him off guard like last time.

The other outcome is that the PC's win the fight. This is gold because once your "bitter violent and resentful Hutt" finds out that the party wasted a group of his mooks, regardless of the "very uneasy truce" made, will put out a hefty hit on the party. Thats GMing gold right there.

I also like this idea. For a little bit of extra salt on the wound, this planet doesn't have much tech and it would be hard to get a hold of a new droid arm. In fact the only being on the planet capable of sourcing those parts, works for the very Hutt that the party have pissed off I may go with this (or a variation of this) Thanks for the input. My next session won't be until I finish my exams in May though Way too much time to let the party stew

11 hours ago, Ryoden said:

If you don't roll behind a screen then flip a destiny point and declare that you rolled a 103

Ive already made a homerule about "Situational critical injuries" where on the odd occasion, critical injuries will be picked to suit the circumstance, rather than rolled. Like how Jedi like to lop people's hands off rather than killing them Usually costs a Destiny Point anyway.