Hey all, So something I see a lot is that GM's aren't to sure about when to give conflict or how much should be given. So I wanted to see how other people handle conflict and get some better baseline of conflict generation. If you could help me out and give me some examples of an action that should/would generate conflict, how much, and why. Once I've gathered all the examples I plan to put together a simple refrence sheet that I'll post up here when I'm done.

Thanks in advance =)

The problem is that there isnt a fixed cost for a fixed action

Take theft - It has been spelled out that if a PC stole from the Imperials because they took that from other people through illegal or unfair means, the this may generate no conflcit if they stole to gice the goods /material / credits back. IE it was a purelh selfless action.

in the same situation if that mateial or moneh was taken fairly as a Tax that everyone else is paying and the person can afford to pay it then the PC is committing morally wrong theft and would get the corresponding conflict even though it was a selfless action

If the PC did it for themselves as an act of greed the GM can add 2/3/4 more conflict for the theft,

Finally if the PC did it , because he felt like it and it was out of Malice, for example he did it out of jealousy or spite then they are looking at +5 on the conflict award. .

This goes across the board from vandalism up to murder, motive does count, in the game as well. So murder could net you 0-15 conflict depending on how and why you did it. 10 is the base cost. Even the you will find it hard to get people to agree on what is rignt or wrong.

Example - PC has a vision through Foresight that a diplomat is going to commit Genocide, he has circumstantial evidence that backs up this and it is about to happen imminently, the Diplomat at this time is innocent of any crime ,but this circumstancial evidence says it will happen in 15 minutes. The PC is a sniper and can quite easily put a stop to this, but only by committing murder on a diplomat , who up till now has no evidence of wrong doing)

Many would say that he would be right in taking the kill shot, rather than take the risk of the Genocide from happening. Lets complicate matters more, what if this race is known to be developing the death star and the Diplomat has the ability to stop construction ever starting but at the cost of the whole Geonosian race. Now we are getting into seriously morally grey territory.

Some common occurrences:

When I have a PC that is roleplaying marked anger, or fear, I'll ask them if they're trying to invoke the Conflict mechanic - or if they'd like to roll a Discipline check w/ appropriate (Average or Hard, generally) Difficulty. They can say no to either or both, but I don't think that's ever happened. I will generally give 1 Conflict for either of these, unless they're uncharacteristically/very angry or afraid - or if it happens to be their Moral Weakness, then I'll consider more. I think it's been as much as 4 for such an occaision that pertained to a PCs moral weakness and was a kind of story plot point.

Knowing Inaction, I follow the book guide; 1-5 depending on if/how hard they've already tried to do something, and what they're turning they're back on.

Theft I'll probably give a minimum of 1 for, even if it's mitigated by being something that belongs to the Empire, or the like. Even if that's the mission; "go steal this thing". There's still someone who loses their job over that, or who's life is otherwise negatively impacted.

Violence First, I'll follow the book guide, 1 pt.

The above, plus Darkside pips, account for probably 95% of Conflict handed out in my game?

Violence first is one of the most 'fun' part in spaceship combat.

> Team has about the make a run for it leaving the port without permission
> Tie fighter is on approach, locked your ship
> Imperial Flight control is warning you will be shot down, unless you submit and land
You win the initiative and you shot at the Tie fighter before the Tie can fire at you -> Violence first - Conflict 1p
You made a lucky shot, causing critical, rolled uncontrolled spinning, Tie crashes -> Murder - Conflict 10p

If you let the Tie fighter fire at you and than you shot him down -> no conflict as it was self-defense.

Correct me if I'm wrong here. It's more like the old Wild West gunslinger rules: 'he pulled first, so it was self-defense, not murder'.

6 hours ago, DerWish said:

Violence first is one of the most 'fun' part in spaceship combat.

> Team has about the make a run for it leaving the port without permission
> Tie fighter is on approach, locked your ship
> Imperial Flight control is warning you will be shot down, unless you submit and land
You win the initiative and you shot at the Tie fighter before the Tie can fire at you -> Violence first - Conflict 1p
You made a lucky shot, causing critical, rolled uncontrolled spinning, Tie crashes -> Murder - Conflict 10p

If you let the Tie fighter fire at you and than you shot him down -> no conflict as it was self-defense.

Correct me if I'm wrong here. It's more like the old Wild West gunslinger rules: 'he pulled first, so it was self-defense, not murder'.

The need to roll initiative means thst combat has already started , winning initiative does not mean you acted first or even shot first it means that the results of your actions/maneuvers are felt first.

On 13.7.2017 at 3:36 PM, DerWish said:

Violence first is one of the most 'fun' part in spaceship combat.

> Team has about the make a run for it leaving the port without permission
> Tie fighter is on approach, locked your ship
> Imperial Flight control is warning you will be shot down, unless you submit and land
You win the initiative and you shot at the Tie fighter before the Tie can fire at you -> Violence first - Conflict 1p
You made a lucky shot, causing critical, rolled uncontrolled spinning, Tie crashes -> Murder - Conflict 10p

If you let the Tie fighter fire at you and than you shot him down -> no conflict as it was self-defense.

Correct me if I'm wrong here. It's more like the old Wild West gunslinger rules: 'he pulled first, so it was self-defense, not murder'.

It's all about context. Are you shooting down an unarmed Alderaanian patrol ship to smuggle in drugs? Or are you flying an assaulting against Space Auschwitz in order to free the captives?

The Dark Side Sourcebook, written by Bill Slavicsek and J.D. Wiker, has a chapter where they explain that is better to look at the emotion behind the action than the action itself when looking if an action drives a PC towards the dark side. It is very helpful.

Based on this, I take the following steps when evaluating an action:

- What kind of act is? An act of agression (hurting, killing, extorsion...), of selfishness (blackmail, treason, theft...) or of cruelty/malice (emotional abuse, mocking, overreacted revenge)?

- Is there an emotion behind the act? Fear, anger, hate, malice, avarice, jealously, vanity, wrath, revenge, love (the need to feel love, love without attatchment, true compassion...) ...?

- Is there something that could mitigate the action? Like defending an innocent, moved by your emotional strength, defending a loved one...

- Is there something that aggravates the action? Like doing it because is fun, moved by your emotional weakness, doing it to an ally (or worse, to a loved one)...

Then I assign the conflict based on a scale of 1, 5 or 10, and modify it depending on the context and degree of the action.

For example: steal a vehicle.

- Situation A: the PCs are fleeing a group of minions that are after them. There is a speeder that is stoped in a semaphor. One of the PCs grabs the driver out of the vehicle, tells the other PCs to jump to the speeder and go full throtle fleeing the minions. When the group loses the minions, they leave the airspeeder somewhere and resume their activities.

- Situation B: the PCs steal an airspeeder that looks expensive and sell it in the black market to make a good cash.

In situation A there has been a little act of agression and a theft, but moved for saving their lifes. The driver has not been hurt (they could shot him down...), and after the chase they do not keep the airspeeder, so I would assign 0 conflict.

In situation B, i would assign 2 conflict, as it is an act of selfishness moved by their avarice. It doesn't matter if the airspeeder is property of a corrupt imperial, a spoiled noble or a genereous benefactor.

Also, remember Yoda's speech: "FEAR leads to anger. ANGER leads to hate. HATE leads to SUFFERING".

I hope it helps!

3 hours ago, hikari_dourden said:

The Dark Side Sourcebook, written by Bill Slavicsek and J.D. Wiker, has a chapter where they explain that is better to look at the emotion behind the action than the action itself when looking if an action drives a PC towards the dark side. It is very helpful.

Based on this, I take the following steps when evaluating an action:

- What kind of act is? An act of agression (hurting, killing, extorsion...), of selfishness (blackmail, treason, theft...) or of cruelty/malice (emotional abuse, mocking, overreacted revenge)?

- Is there an emotion behind the act? Fear, anger, hate, malice, avarice, jealously, vanity, wrath, revenge, love (the need to feel love, love without attatchment, true compassion...) ...?

- Is there something that could mitigate the action? Like defending an innocent, moved by your emotional strength, defending a loved one...

- Is there something that aggravates the action? Like doing it because is fun, moved by your emotional weakness, doing it to an ally (or worse, to a loved one)...

Then I assign the conflict based on a scale of 1, 5 or 10, and modify it depending on the context and degree of the action.

For example: steal a vehicle.

- Situation A: the PCs are fleeing a group of minions that are after them. There is a speeder that is stoped in a semaphor. One of the PCs grabs the driver out of the vehicle, tells the other PCs to jump to the speeder and go full throtle fleeing the minions. When the group loses the minions, they leave the airspeeder somewhere and resume their activities.

- Situation B: the PCs steal an airspeeder that looks expensive and sell it in the black market to make a good cash.

In situation A there has been a little act of agression and a theft, but moved for saving their lifes. The driver has not been hurt (they could shot him down...), and after the chase they do not keep the airspeeder, so I would assign 0 conflict.

In situation B, i would assign 2 conflict, as it is an act of selfishness moved by their avarice. It doesn't matter if the airspeeder is property of a corrupt imperial, a spoiled noble or a genereous benefactor.

Also, remember Yoda's speech: "FEAR leads to anger. ANGER leads to hate. HATE leads to SUFFERING".

I hope it helps!

as per raw theft fuelled by greed can have 5 or more conflict. Theft caused by altruism can be 0, just plain theft with no malice or greed or selflessness involved is 2

6 hours ago, syrath said:

as per raw theft fuelled by greed can have 5 or more conflict. Theft caused by altruism can be 0, just plain theft with no malice or greed or selflessness involved is 2

Yes, you are right. Also you stated perfectly in a single row what I tried to explain so large before: identify the kind of act, identify the emotion/motivation behind, and identify if circumstances aggravate or mitigate the conflict gain.

Thanks!

On ‎14‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 6:04 AM, syrath said:

The need to roll initiative means thst combat has already started , winning initiative does not mean you acted first or even shot first it means that the results of your actions/maneuvers are felt first.

Sorry to get super legalistic here, but only Sir Humphrey Waldock has argued that a mounted attack that has not yet crossed a frontier or fired a shot, is still an armed attack under international law. The reason I mount this is you're essentially describing pre-emptive self-defence, which Sir Humphrey was mounting a limited legal defence of.

Force-users should always seek a pacific solution to a problem. The best example I ever saw of this, influenced no doubt by WEG's rules, was in Heir to the Empire . Whilst this novel was a necessary casualty of the deserved Legends purge, it nonetheless had Luke trying to find ways not to kill Noghri on Bimmisari.

That combat has started does not automatically create a need and permissiveness for the force user to kill. Using ion weapons, asking to make targeted shots to have the TIE back off, etc - these are more appropriate gestures for someone in tune with the light side.

Those who are, by virtue of FAD not being a Jedi book (you're as much a Jedi as Dark Forces II Kyle was), still learning the right resolve would rightly get conflict as per DerWish's post.

16 hours ago, hikari_dourden said:

The Dark Side Sourcebook, written by Bill Slavicsek and J.D. Wiker, has a chapter where they explain that is better to look at the emotion behind the action than the action itself when looking if an action drives a PC towards the dark side. It is very helpful.

Yes but this is also the same Bill Slavicsek who wrote the rules which said 5 dark side points was sufficient to have a character turned. And as per my above comments, the same Bill who made it so Jedi had to exhaust every option before using lethal force.

6 hours ago, Endersai said:

Sorry to get super legalistic here, but only Sir Humphrey Waldock has argued that a mounted attack that has not yet crossed a frontier or fired a shot, is still an armed attack under international law. The reason I mount this is you're essentially describing pre-emptive self-defence, which Sir Humphrey was mounting a limited legal defence of.

Force-users should always seek a pacific solution to a problem. The best example I ever saw of this, influenced no doubt by WEG's rules, was in Heir to the Empire . Whilst this novel was a necessary casualty of the deserved Legends purge, it nonetheless had Luke trying to find ways not to kill Noghri on Bimmisari.

That combat has started does not automatically create a need and permissiveness for the force user to kill. Using ion weapons, asking to make targeted shots to have the TIE back off, etc - these are more appropriate gestures for someone in tune with the light side.

Those who are, by virtue of FAD not being a Jedi book (you're as much a Jedi as Dark Forces II Kyle was), still learning the right resolve would rightly get conflict as per DerWish's post.

Yes but this is also the same Bill Slavicsek who wrote the rules which said 5 dark side points was sufficient to have a character turned. And as per my above comments, the same Bill who made it so Jedi had to exhaust every option before using lethal force.

Just to clarify, if an opponent declares an intent to attack, they attacked first, just because you happened to win initiative just meant that while they were drawing a bead on you , you were able to get the drop on them or that you were able to get a shot off that mattered first. Your opponent still attacked first.

If it was the other way round and the players were in the middle of talking to someone and said, okay I attack him. I then ask them to roll initiative and the NPC wins, the PCs were still the aggressors here.

So someone swinging their giant vibro-axe at you has to actually hit you before fighting starts? Or a swing and a miss - that isn't fighting? Or shooting at you but missing isn't the start of a firefight?

On 13.7.2017 at 5:28 AM, syrath said:

This goes across the board from vandalism up to murder, motive does count, in the game as well. So murder could net you 0-15 conflict depending on how and why you did it. 10 is the base cost. Even the you will find it hard to get people to agree on what is rignt or wrong.

The part about motivation bothers me most (not in what you said, but generally). In lore I'm familiar with, road to **** is often paved with good intentions. I don't feel that the motivation system supports this very well. It is sometimes said that force is doesn't care about your motivation. Maybe this is because in our group, I have problems with conflict, partially because of our short sessions, partially because of our play style, partially because of PC (they usually always try to talk before fighting, because one of them is force boosted social machine). This is probably just my problem. Thankfully players in my group don't argue when I award them conflict. They actually call it XP.

3 hours ago, kkuja said:

The part about motivation bothers me most (not in what you said, but generally). In lore I'm familiar with, road to **** is often paved with good intentions. I don't feel that the motivation system supports this very well. It is sometimes said that force is doesn't care about your motivation. Maybe this is because in our group, I have problems with conflict, partially because of our short sessions, partially because of our play style, partially because of PC (they usually always try to talk before fighting, because one of them is force boosted social machine). This is probably just my problem. Thankfully players in my group don't argue when I award them conflict. They actually call it XP.

It all depends on how you rule altruism. You rob from the empire so as to give funds back to those oppressed by the empire, that to me is altruism.

Stealing some guys speeder so as to catch some random bad guy that furthers your own ends is not. To me that would be base conflict, as it was neither greed (assuming you don't keep the bike) nor did it serve to further the needs of those who are without, it made things easier for the players, to end of , so its plain theft.