Backstory:
So I had my yearly camping Star Wars session this year and spent hours and hours trying to come up with a good amount of content to create a Trial of Skill for my players...only for them to go so far off the rails that I couldn't get them back on track (at least not during this session). /facepalm

Anyways I had a PC get a crit of 129, which permanently reduced their brawn from 2 to 1...after that point he seemed rather annoyed and started playing his character in a much more aggressive manner. Considering this PC has always tried to be the voice of reason and is a Light side paragon, I figured that he would calm down after some more play...turns out I was wrong. He ended up murdering 2 defenseless NPC's in cold blood with his lightsaber because he was frustrated.

A bit later he was openly walking through the city streets even though the whole group is wanted by the Imperials, and because he refused to do a stealth check, he automatically failed. They heard sirens, I gave the group a chance to do something before the enemies arrived but all they did was wait...The PC in question told the group to leave him alone and he would fend them off...but they stayed because of he was their friend and they didn't want to leave him behind. I ended the session with 2 APC's full of stormtroopers, sergeants, and ISB agents (about 25-30 enemies total) showing up.

At this point it's not looking good for the group, if they don't run away they will probably end up dying or getting captured, and the one PC who had his stat reduced has his mind set on getting killed in action.

I spoke to the player afterwards and he told me that he was getting bored with his character because he was too "squishy" even though he has high wounds/strain, reflect, and parry, but only 3 soak now...(he is literally the definition of "not squishy and he could get better armor.") He said he just would rather play a new character so he wants me to focus all the enemy fire on his when we start the next session.

I don't know about you guys, but I always strive to allow for player agency in my game, so if we end up going off script and doing a totally different adventure, so be it. What I don't appreciate is someone intentionally trying to mess with me and sacrificing his PC for stupid reasons and against how his character normally behaves.

He has had this character for a year and a half and he always seemed to like playing him, but now that he lost that 1 point in brawn, the character is "unplayable." I let him know that it doesn't mean that his character is done, it just means that he can adjust how he plays him and see about moving in new directions with the Force powers and skill trees he invests in. He didn't want to hear it though and shut me out saying he is just wants to use his current amount of XP and build a new character.He wouldn't see any other way, so I finally agreed to let him create a new character because if he wasn't having fun then there's no point in forcing him to keep that character.

The Issue:
Now we are at the point where I am crafting the battle to start the next session and his request to " focus all the fire on him " or use Deus Ex Machina to save the group and sacrifice him sounds like a bit of a cop out. His character is a Soresu Defender Guardian so he is looking at this fight as his "big fight" to go out in a blaze of glory to save his friends...however I view it as, he got sloppy, made bad choices, and now he and his friends have to pay for those bad decisions.

Idk if this makes me a bad GM for thinking like this, but I want to give them a hard fight and NOT focus my fire on him or pull my punches...they got themselves in this situation, and it was mostly that one PC's fault. In my eyes I should fight them hard and if they die along with him, then that's what they ended up choosing instead of running away...

Another option that seems like a mean move was using stun weapons against them and bombarding them with stun bolts/grenades/etc. to knock them out and capture them (if they don't successfully run away). The PC in question would end up getting tortured by the Inquisitors and he would break, thus allowing them to corrupt him and turning him to the Dark side...that way I can use him against the group (as a future Nemesis).

Am I being too much of a Richard about this?

TL;DR - PC wanted to start a new one, didn't tell me, went against character to try to himself killed off and started a big fight. I wanted to capture them and turn him against the group at a later point. Thoughts?

I think your plan to capture them all and turn the annoying Jedi into a dark NPC is a perfect plan. I would certainly do it myself.

Players who refuse to grow with their characters can be annoying. They love their character when everything is going the right way but just as soon as they encounter some diversity, they hate the character. This shows they're not invested in their character. Their character is just a stats sheet. When this PC submits his character you should ask for at least 5 plot hooks and a two page backstory. Get him invested.

He sounds like a whiny baby. Anyone who isn't prepared to have their PC get hurt bad or die isn't looking to actually truly be challenged and is a big fat bag of sniveley fart gas imo.

Gruesome Injury is one of those obnoxious outcomes that really shouldn't have been in the system to begin with, and I'd suggest treating any sort of perma-cripple effect as reversible in the future. You're seeing why: for various reasons - thematic and mechanical - many (most) players would rather have a character outright killed instead, and now that he expressly wants that to happen (which doesn't excuse the passive-aggressive in the meantime), it's better to do that and be done with it; trying to further muck about with the character by turning them into a bad guy off camera is just going to make them angry again.

If the rest of the party wants to get into and then extricate themselves from the mess in the meantime, stick to dealing with that part of the story.

I won't debate the merits of doling out permanent disabilities by random chance, nor will I debate whether or not players should get upset when it happens. Regardless, your player's reaction sounds like textbook passive tantrum-throwing.

As far as what to do, you're just going to have to chose the lesser evil. I don't think it's "mean" for a campaign to have some internal consistency or for player's actions to have consequences. The question is whether or not it's worth a TPK, and only you know your players well enough to make that decision.

10 minutes ago, Garran said:

Gruesome Injury is one of those obnoxious outcomes that really shouldn't have been in the system to begin with, and I'd suggest treating any sort of perma-cripple effect as reversible in the future. You're seeing why: for various reasons - thematic and mechanical - many (most) players would rather have a character outright killed instead, and now that he expressly wants that to happen (which doesn't excuse the passive-aggressive in the meantime), it's better to do that and be done with it; trying to further muck about with the character by turning them into a bad guy off camera is just going to make them angry again.

If the rest of the party wants to get into and then extricate themselves from the mess in the meantime, stick to dealing with that part of the story.

It is reversible, this is what cybernetics are for, not for power gamers to stack dice pools. Cybernetics are there as a means to mitigate serious injuries people suffer. Just ask Luke and Anakin.

48 minutes ago, Garran said:

Gruesome Injury is one of those obnoxious outcomes that really shouldn't have been in the system to begin with, and I'd suggest treating any sort of perma-cripple effect as reversible in the future. You're seeing why: for various reasons - thematic and mechanical - many (most) players would rather have a character outright killed instead, and now that he expressly wants that to happen (which doesn't excuse the passive-aggressive in the meantime), it's better to do that and be done with it; trying to further muck about with the character by turning them into a bad guy off camera is just going to make them angry again.

If the rest of the party wants to get into and then extricate themselves from the mess in the meantime, stick to dealing with that part of the story.

To elaborate a little bit more, I just had another player who was Dark side get killed and created a new character too. I gave a PC the option to end his life or spare him and he chose to kill him off...I really wanted to get my hands on a fairly high level Dark side user but unfortunately he did the opposite of what I thought. I thought that bringing this character back would mess with them...but at the same time it would show that if you do stupid things that it may come to bite you in the butt later.

46 minutes ago, Vorzakk said:

I won't debate the merits of doling out permanent disabilities by random chance, nor will I debate whether or not players should get upset when it happens. Regardless, your player's reaction sounds like textbook passive tantrum-throwing.

As far as what to do, you're just going to have to chose the lesser evil. I don't think it's "mean" for a campaign to have some internal consistency or for player's actions to have consequences. The question is whether or not it's worth a TPK, and only you know your players well enough to make that decision.

This is true...the problem is that I am unsure if they will stick around or not seeing as the player announced to the group at the end of the session that he doesn't want to play this character anymore. I am thinking they will probably run away, but on the off chance they stay and fight I want to make sure that I am presenting a challenge appropriate to the actions they took. I am leaning on more towards stun damage and capturing the group as a whole rather than wiping them out...that would allow the characters to live, not get a bunch of criticals, and be captured.

39 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

It is reversible, this is what cybernetics are for, not for power gamers to stack dice pools. Cybernetics are there as a means to mitigate serious injuries people suffer. Just ask Luke and Anakin.

Those two aren't comparable because neither of them were someone's PC, and neither were altered because of a random die roll.

My experience is that anything that mucks around with a player's image of their character - and that includes mechanical and thematic messing around like permanent/crippling injuries, limb loss, blindness, etc - requires buy-in from the player ahead of time. If not, they're liable to reject the arbitrarily re-imaged character as no longer being theirs, and that's a perfectly valid feeling.

6 minutes ago, Garran said:

Those two aren't comparable because neither of them were someone's PC, and neither were altered because of a random die roll.

My experience is that anything that mucks around with a player's image of their character - and that includes mechanical and thematic messing around like crippling injuries, limb loss, blindness, etc - requires buy-in from the player ahead of time. If not, they're liable to reject the arbitrarily re-imaged character as no longer being theirs, and that's a perfectly valid feeling.

The whole part of using dice is to simulate the "unknown" of the universe though, if you can't get badly hurt then you're not in a realistic world. I realize that it changes the PC's stats and image of their character, but that can happen in D&D and other RPG's as well. I get the frustration part, but not allowing yourself to change with the character or try to find a way around it (see cybernetics) seems like a crappy way to get out of using that character and just rolling a new one.

I say anyone playing a Jedi who whines about being 'gruesomely inured' didn't watch the same movies I did, because we see them getting their @$$es kicked hard, alot.

I still say whiny PC should probably play something safe like an insurance actuary or CPA and leave the hero stuff to the pros.....

Last whiny player I had cost me my game. Perma drop in a stat like brawn isn't that big a deal, that's what cybernetics are for.

Or even not. Its not like its a major stat for a jedi

So are you saying I shouldn't allow him to start a new character? Or just that it's a crappy reason to do so?

37 minutes ago, ASCI Blue said:

Last whiny player I had cost me my game. Perma drop in a stat like brawn isn't that big a deal, that's what cybernetics are for.

Although dropping Brawn makes it harder to fit in those cybernetics.

6 hours ago, 2P51 said:

I say anyone playing a Jedi who whines about being 'gruesomely inured' didn't watch the same movies I did, because we see them getting their @$$es kicked hard, alot.

I still say whiny PC should probably play something safe like an insurance actuary or CPA and leave the hero stuff to the pros.....

There's three statistics that cybernetics can't improve straight off the bat. I still think losing a limb is far more 'Star Wars' than getting hit and permanently losing a point of Willpower, Cunning or Presence.

However, the game does list repli-limb organs despite not having crits that go for your organs, so I'd probably just let a player restore his characteristic back to what it was before with a repli-limb organ that seems appropriate.

7 hours ago, 2P51 said:

It is reversible, this is what cybernetics are for, not for power gamers to stack dice pools. Cybernetics are there as a means to mitigate serious injuries people suffer. Just ask Luke and Anakin.

I am pretty sure that just healing the crit removes the attribute reduction and we see here another case of poor wording and editing.

"The short-term effects of some inJuries are temporary, and may only disorient or afflict the character
for a brief amount of time. Other injuries are more serious and represent some sort of long-term debilitation or impairment These injuries continue to affect
the character until he receives the proper medical treatment to recover from the injury ."

Permanently seems to be in this context "permanently until healed" in contrast to all those "for the remaining of the encounter" reductions. Or so I would like to say , but then Horrific Injury in contrast to gruesome injury would not make sense. So I guess that crit is indeed meant to be a irreversible characteristic reducing. What a bull random critical. Not because the characteristic reduction itself, but because this **** is totally out of place in the system, not only is it out of place with all the other critical hits, it is out of place as well within universe, because this is unlike others said here not reversible by cybernetics. If I am a droid with improved limb systems already … I still have no way to compensate for the loss of willpower or really any other loss in characteristics. This kind of permanent, irreversible damage is rather atypical for star wars. Vader and Sidious had it and that's about it. And with a 4% span, this crit should come up on regular base if the GM starts to hand out crits on every opportunity like he should.

23 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

if the GM starts to hand out crits on every opportunity like he should.

Um, could ≠ should.

1 hour ago, SEApocalypse said:

I am pretty sure that just healing the crit removes the attribute reduction and we see here another case of poor wording and editing.

"The short-term effects of some inJuries are temporary, and may only disorient or afflict the character
for a brief amount of time. Other injuries are more serious and represent some sort of long-term debilitation or impairment These injuries continue to affect
the character until he receives the proper medical treatment to recover from the injury ."

Permanently seems to be in this context "permanently until healed" in contrast to all those "for the remaining of the encounter" reductions. Or so I would like to say , but then Horrific Injury in contrast to gruesome injury would not make sense. So I guess that crit is indeed meant to be a irreversible characteristic reducing. What a bull random critical. Not because the characteristic reduction itself, but because this **** is totally out of place in the system, not only is it out of place with all the other critical hits, it is out of place as well within universe, because this is unlike others said here not reversible by cybernetics. If I am a droid with improved limb systems already … I still have no way to compensate for the loss of willpower or really any other loss in characteristics. This kind of permanent, irreversible damage is rather atypical for star wars. Vader and Sidious had it and that's about it. And with a 4% span, this crit should come up on regular base if the GM starts to hand out crits on every opportunity like he should.

Having two crits with one spelling out until healed and one saying permanent isn't ambiguous.

1 hour ago, Silim said:

There's three statistics that cybernetics can't improve straight off the bat. I still think losing a limb is far more 'Star Wars' than getting hit and permanently losing a point of Willpower, Cunning or Presence.

However, the game does list repli-limb organs despite not having crits that go for your organs, so I'd probably just let a player restore his characteristic back to what it was before with a repli-limb organ that seems appropriate.

Willpower and Cunning are just two other ways we use our brain, hand waving a cerebral implant for those purposes is easy enough. Presence is even easier, it's called a boob job.....

7 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

Willpower and Cunning are just two other ways we use our brain, hand waving a cerebral implant for those purposes is easy enough. Presence is even easier, it's called a boob job.....

A boob job is clearly charming, but it most certainly does not enhance your presence, even when I appreciate your humor.

Well it's not in the game, so it requires imagination, I have plenty at my table, can't speak for others....

17 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

Well it's not in the game, so it requires imagination, I have plenty at my table, can't speak for others....

Maybe if you give me boob job first, I might find this more convincing.

10 hours ago, Garran said:

My experience is that anything that mucks around with a player's image of their character - and that includes mechanical and thematic messing around like permanent/crippling injuries, limb loss, blindness, etc - requires buy-in from the player ahead of time.

Haven't they bought in by playing this system? I mean, crits are a fairly major part of the game - it's not the GM's fault if the players didn't bother to learn the rules and discover what the dangers of suffering crits were.

My two cents is that the OP probably did the right thing: if people aren't having fun, letting the player roll up a new character seems like the decent thing to do, and will probably work out best for everyone.

But, broadly, I'm with the pirate on this one - the player is being a d**k. Aside from anything else (and I say this as someone who is definitely at the number-crunchy, can't-stand-wishy-washy-rules end of this forum), these sorts of injuries present a fantastic role-playing opportunity! Your character is wounded and permanently weakend? OK, fine - how does he react to that? Does he now have a new drive to restore himself? How does it change his outlook on those that were previously less able than him?

(NB: Having said all that, there probably is a case for the GM going outside RAW and presenting the PC with an opportunity to restore that point of Brawn if they fulfill some epic narrative mission - maybe there's some lost Sith artefact to find that can restore a warrior's strength...but at what cost...?)

So aside from the topic of if the player was being a whiny d*ck.... My main question now would be should I be capturing his character instead of killing him off as per his request? Capturing him and turning him to the Dark side would rob him off his "epic death" by saving the group... Because IMHO he wasn't saving anyone due to the fact that they are in this predicament due to his stupidity...

If he's been this whiny about it, I doubt going against his wishes is going to help the group dynamic going forward. You could always talk to him outside of the game and mention your idea - if he's cool with it, you're golden. Otherwise this runs the risk of further tantrums down the line, or the player quitting out of spite. Then again, sometimes losing a problem player helps the remaining group; that happened at my table a couple years ago. It's a tough call.