So next week (hopefully) my group will be starting a new campaign as part of a cycle alternating between two campaigns. I’ll be GM-ing and there a few things that I still need to work out, with help from here I’m hoping.

So we’re going to play a force user heavy campaign and since I’ve never GM-ed force users before there’s a few things I need help with, and a few general story ideas that I want to try but am not quite sure how to pull off. We’re going to have a Consular-Sage, Sentinel-Sentry, Guardian-Protector, and Bounty Hunter-Gadgeteer.

So first issue, the Gadgeteer wants to use the morality system same as all the other players, so this leaves me with a bit of a problem since the system as is doesn’t work well (if at all) for non-force users. So I was thinking about using it as a measure of reputation, if they’re known for kindness, compassion, traits generally associated with light-side force users they have a high “morality” and if they’re known for deception for personal gain, hate, and others associated with the dark-side they have a low “morality.” What do you all think of that?

When we were working on the characters I suggested the idea that two of the players be a master and apprentice/Padawan. The Sage and Sentry players liked this idea, and they decided that the Sage should be the master and the Sentry the apprentice, so I gave the Sage player some extra xp, partly because their character is about 500 years old. Now I’m not sure, should there be some game mechanic bonus for this relationship? I feel like there could be, since there are rules for NPC mentors, but I’m not sure how or if this would translate to PCs.

Another thing I’m not sure about is how more force sensitive NPCs to include. For those of you who’ve ran force user campaigns did a certain number of appearances seem to be a sweet spot, or do you think it just depends on the players involved?

Based on the way they described their characters, it feels that they don’t really have much at this point in time, so I was thinking that in the first session or so they could find their starting resource, and that depending on what they do they will receive/find a different starting resource. I was thinking the different options could be a ship, a base of operations (using the rules in the AoR core rule book), or a homestead (from Far Horizons). Does this sound like a good idea, and what would be a good way to implement it?

17 minutes ago, Imperial Stormtrooper said:

So I was thinking about using it as a measure of reputation, if they’re known for kindness, compassion, traits generally associated with light-side force users they have a high “morality” and if they’re known for deception for personal gain, hate, and others associated with the dark-side they have a low “morality.” What do you all think of that?

This is practically what Obligation is. Low Obligation means the PC pays his debts, honours his word, and is beholden to few...this doesn't necessarily play well with the more nefarious characters in the SW universe. In a nutshell, you can't really trust someone who doesn't owe you something. On the flip side, those with high Obligation are people who've done things that others can hold over their heads. Their morality is compromised by their debts, so they can't be trusted by more upstanding citizens.

So I would just use Obligation, maybe with a bit of finessing to include moral issues as well as physical debts.

25 minutes ago, Imperial Stormtrooper said:

Now I’m not sure, should there be some game mechanic bonus for this relationship?

Depends if the other players are okay with it. It might cause friction if one PC is getting "freebies", especially since the other already starts with more XP.

26 minutes ago, Imperial Stormtrooper said:

I was thinking the different options could be a ship, a base of operations (using the rules in the AoR core rule book), or a homestead (from Far Horizons). Does this sound like a good idea, and what would be a good way to implement it?

All of those seem reasonable to me. Personally these are the kinds of game rules I throw out the window at the first opportunity, and just set up whatever makes sense for the story. In my last campaign, the PCs were all part-owners of an import-export business. I basically used the homestead framework. The assumption was their business generated enough money to cover cost of living (food, basic clothing, the occasional night at the bar). I also gave them a ship, however, this had been recently upgraded and cost them 2000cr / month to maintain. So the backdrop of the story was they had to find an extra 2000cr a month in work, and those jobs were the special ones worthy of actually running sessions for. Sometimes a session would begin "a month goes by normally, you do the odd job here and there, but you're still short about 1000cr. You're sitting in the cantina wondering which favours you can call in when..."

19 hours ago, whafrog said:

This is practically what Obligation is.

Shows you how many campaigns I've run using Obligation.

I asked since the player said they wanted to use morality, but I may just say take an obligation and a emotional strength/weakness, sounds like it may balance the two.

19 hours ago, whafrog said:

Depends if the other players are okay with it. It might cause friction if one PC is getting "freebies", especially since the other already starts with more XP.

I will ask, another thing I've thought of is having training with another force user providing some benefit, that would mean that it wouldn't feel like a "freebie" since it took time to get the benefit. How does that sound?

Thanks for the reply.

I think this idea of Morality for the Gadgeteer is interesting. So as a non-Force user what this may affect is how the Force users perceive the BH character. While he cannot use the Force, like all living things he exists in the Force. So the Jedi characters may be seeing his actions as either complimentary and view the BH as an ally of theirs in promoting the Light Side, or they may see him as a bit of a savage creature that if he were to connect with the Force would have dangerous connections to the Dark Side.

You could keep track of the BH Morality but at no point can he really have any mechanical effect from it, as it's really just a way to have the Force Users regard him. It might be interesting to have the BH pulling hard to the Dark Side but have him be a good friend of the Jedi, so they themselves may be conflicted by his actions. Or he may end up being a Non-Force Paragon of Light, which would have no mechanical effect, but would perhaps make him someone whom the Jedi might be very dedicated to protecting or helping, even more so than normal group member loyalty.

I would have the master and student have a connection in the Force because of their relationship. This would mainly manifest as some freebie sense stuff pertaining to their Master/Padawan. I don't think a mechanical advantage or disadvantage is a good idea, as a Role-Playing effect would seem to be more powerful and fruitful.

As for the money aspect of the campaign I would try to figure out how important it is to the campaign. Do you want them opening up Jedi Ice Cream shops to earn money, or will money just be an occasional obstacle for certain parts of the story, and if so how do you want them to resolve that? In AoR and FaD games I usually put very little emphasis on Money, as money seems to lead to Edge play. Once they start down that path forever does it dominate their thinking.

34 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

I think this idea of Morality for the Gadgeteer is interesting. So as a non-Force user what this may affect is how the Force users perceive the BH character. While he cannot use the Force, like all living things he exists in the Force. So the Jedi characters may be seeing his actions as either complimentary and view the BH as an ally of theirs in promoting the Light Side, or they may see him as a bit of a savage creature that if he were to connect with the Force would have dangerous connections to the Dark Side.

You could keep track of the BH Morality but at no point can he really have any mechanical effect from it, as it's really just a way to have the Force Users regard him. It might be interesting to have the BH pulling hard to the Dark Side but have him be a good friend of the Jedi, so they themselves may be conflicted by his actions. Or he may end up being a Non-Force Paragon of Light, which would have no mechanical effect, but would perhaps make him someone whom the Jedi might be very dedicated to protecting or helping, even more so than normal group member loyalty.

I then realized there is a huge downside to this idea as it basically becomes a "Know Alignment" for the Jedi. I see now why maybe Non-Force characters don't need Morality lol

1 hour ago, Archlyte said:

I would have the master and student have a connection in the Force because of their relationship. This would mainly manifest as some freebie sense stuff pertaining to their Master/Padawan. I don't think a mechanical advantage or disadvantage is a good idea, as a Role-Playing effect would seem to be more powerful and fruitful.

That may work, the issue is that the past two characters I've seen the player playing as the apprentice/Padawan have been very similar in almost every way especially personality wise, granted they were both Engineers/Technicians so I'm hoping that this one will be different.

I'm really undecided if this connection should provide any mechanical benefit, or if it should just be narrative. One thing I've thought about is basing a "training" mechanic off of some of the stuff in Keeping the Peace, then anyone can benefit, and it would allow a combined narrative mechanical bonus to the master-apprentice/Padawan relationship.

1 hour ago, Archlyte said:

As for the money aspect of the campaign I would try to figure out how important it is to the campaign. Do you want them opening up Jedi Ice Cream shops to earn money, or will money just be an occasional obstacle for certain parts of the story, and if so how do you want them to resolve that? In AoR and FaD games I usually put very little emphasis on Money, as money seems to lead to Edge play. Once they start down that path forever does it dominate their thinking.

Yeah that's the issue, what's the best way to reward the players in a game like this, beyond XP. I don't think that any kind of significant emphasis on money would be too much of a benefit, so it would probably be an occasional obstacle. Something this made me think about is how and when to provide items as "rewards" for completing an "episode" or "quest," and basically I'm left with, they find the item, or are given it, if I don't want to focus too much on money. Granted there are ways to make both of those interesting, but it just sounds so lackluster...

37 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

I then realized there is a huge downside to this idea as it basically becomes a "Know Alignment" for the Jedi. I see now why maybe Non-Force characters don't need Morality lol

Yeah, I'm leaning towards, saying they can have 1-3 obligations since they'll be the only non-force user, and a emotional strength/weakness, and throw everyone ethical dilemmas, not just the force users.

Though, (sort of a side note) it sounds like one of the characters (the Sage), may get on the express train to 0 morality depending on how things go, so... that could be interesting... or a problem......

Thanks for the reply/replies

I think if you really want a mechanical effect that idea of training being available to the Padawan is a good one. Maybe also something where the Strain is affected. Like if the Padawan is injured or in trouble the Master may get some strain. Also if its a situation where the Padawan wants to do well in front of his master he might take some strain. For a benefit you could give them blues to do things that would be the result of their close relationship, anything from social checks to combat maneuvers.

Yeah I agree that rewards can be a hard topic. I would think that Jedi are gonna be a bit above the money aspect. Money is just a means to an end for them, and they would seem to need to have goals that are more based around doing something that fits with their overall beliefs. The players may like money, but their characters wouldn't have much use for it (except the BH of course). And because you have that BH in with some Jedi if he goes off on wild capitalistic ventures the Jedi are probably not going to be involved unless you give them good reason otherwise.

Items seem like a good way to go because the player and the character could appreciate gear. It helps them to get their job done, which is what Jedi characters should be doing a lot of the time, a task of some kind.

What does the BH player want to do in the game? Why is he with those jedi? I'm curious. Also if that Sage goes straight for the Dark Side how will this affect the pupil? Do you think the character playing the student will just follow his master into the dark side? Or will this be a Training Day type setup?

3 hours ago, Archlyte said:

I think if you really want a mechanical effect that idea of training being available to the Padawan is a good one. Maybe also something where the Strain is affected. Like if the Padawan is injured or in trouble the Master may get some strain. Also if its a situation where the Padawan wants to do well in front of his master he might take some strain. For a benefit you could give them blues to do things that would be the result of their close relationship, anything from social checks to combat maneuvers.

I'm definitely leaning towards there being some form of mechanical effect. The strain idea is definitely one to consider, especially if I grant them boost dice in certain situation because of it.

3 hours ago, Archlyte said:

What does the BH player want to do in the game? Why is he with those jedi? I'm curious.

The BH player had his backstory as attempting to redeem himself after working for the Hutts and having a job go very wrong. By working with and guarding the Protector (sort of ironic when you look at the name of the spec). So its sort of a redemption/protection combo.

3 hours ago, Archlyte said:

Also if that Sage goes straight for the Dark Side how will this affect the pupil? Do you think the character playing the student will just follow his master into the dark side? Or will this be a Training Day type setup?

I'll be honest I had to look up what Training Day was. But anyway, I actually have no idea, the Sentry player can be one of the most unpredictable of the group, so he could follow his master (a similar situation has happened before), or he could go off in his own direction (he did say that he wanted to be an independent-minded apprentice).

Sorry for the obscure reference. I was surprised in a good way as to what the BH player was doing. The player who is controlling the Sage is leaning toward the dark side but is there some reason for this, or is the player just following the trend and wanting to be a cool edge lord? The BH would seem to have a problem with this, the other Jedi Guardian and the Padawan might too. Is this something you have mentally prepared for? The one member just going AWOL from the morality of the rest of the group?

7 hours ago, Archlyte said:

Sorry for the obscure reference.

No problem.

7 hours ago, Archlyte said:

The player who is controlling the Sage is leaning toward the dark side but is there some reason for this, or is the player just following the trend and wanting to be a cool edge lord? The BH would seem to have a problem with this, the other Jedi Guardian and the Padawan might too. Is this something you have mentally prepared for? The one member just going AWOL from the morality of the rest of the group?

The character he described to me sounded like "an old guy who thinks he knows everything" (he does have intellect 5), and doesn't care about morals. So I'm not sure which category that fits into... It's something I've thought about, but I'm not sure the best way to handle it, I don't want to say no to his idea, but I also don't the other players to be drug along with him.

In the original post, you asked how many force sensitive NPC's to have in your game. The answer is 'Practically Zero'. I'm going to guess that your game is set just after the destruction of the Death Star (the 'basic' starting point, if you will), and at that point in time, force sensitives are pretty much hunted to extinction. The low numbers of force sensitive NPC's should also impress on the players just how critical it is for them to keep their heads down, as it were, and not 'show off' when there are people around. ISB has eyes everywhere, and even the vaguest hint of the slightest whiff of force ability, and the Inquisitors show up. This leads to something else you may want to consider: Have a plan for when the group gets a might careless with their force abilities, or when someone flashes a lightsaber in public. Nothing will have your players sweating more than after they use their force abilities to win a battle, only to have a witness dash away, hollering for the local garrison.

5 hours ago, LugWrench said:

how critical it is for them to keep their heads down, as it were,

I've only got one player in my campaign who's playing a Force-sensitive and I've actually been very impressed with the restraint she's demonstrated (especially in light of the fact that her other gaming group is composed entirely of mega-munchkins). After 29 sessions, her character has only made use of the Force on 3 or 4 occasions; and though the players are aware, none of the other characters has the slightest clue that she's a Force-sensitive.

On ‎10‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 8:15 AM, Imperial Stormtrooper said:

No problem.

The character he described to me sounded like "an old guy who thinks he knows everything" (he does have intellect 5), and doesn't care about morals. So I'm not sure which category that fits into... It's something I've thought about, but I'm not sure the best way to handle it, I don't want to say no to his idea, but I also don't the other players to be drug along with him.

Yeah if he is in a group with that many Force sensitive characters it's going to be kind of obvious he is going dark side to the others unless he is really smart about how he goes about it. If his Padawan and the others are not seeing that he is being evil then cool, it could play out in a very interesting manner, but if he is twisting his mustache while acting like a Mexican Drug Cartel enforcer pretty quick the Jedi in the group are going to turn on him and try to rescue his apprentice I would think. They are in such a precarious position that having a dark sider in their midst is a risk to them on several levels they can't mitigate. I don't think the PC halo or the good guy theory is enough to save this from eventual PvP.

If the character doesn't care about morals, what DO they care about? They might operate by a different set of guideposts that don't have to do with conventional morality as such. (Morals in the general sense aren't the same as F&D Morality - you might not care about the former but still stay on the light side of the latter for other reasons.)

Re: reputation, the guardian career book had a simple +3/-3 (or maybe it was +4/-4) system for that sort of thing, not strictly based on the character's morality but rather on their public reputation.

In general I'm suspicious of anyone who wants to roll a bad guy. A bad guy in a good guy group is a double alarm, because it basically means you are looking at a player whose goals are likely to run counter to those of the group, and who may even actively try to destroy the group. When your players are making characters they care about and then adding them to a group they are likely looking to have a team and to build from there. I think you could have someone with crap morals be in a good team if they are like Jane from Firefly, but even that strains things.

Every game is different, but the "I'm smarter than everyone else + I'm evil" thing sounds like a recipe for problems in a group full of Good Force users.

2 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

In general I'm suspicious of anyone who wants to roll a bad guy. A bad guy in a good guy group is a double alarm, because it basically means you are looking at a player whose goals are likely to run counter to those of the group, and who may even actively try to destroy the group. When your players are making characters they care about and then adding them to a group they are likely looking to have a team and to build from there. I think you could have someone with crap morals be in a good team if they are like Jane from Firefly, but even that strains things.

Every game is different, but the "I'm smarter than everyone else + I'm evil" thing sounds like a recipe for problems in a group full of Good Force users.

You're right, but it is possible. In my experience, bad guy characters (and paladin types too, for that matter), need some kind of social contract that goes beyond their in-character behavior code. An evil character is fine, so long as the player understands that the evil character shouldn't act against the party, even if it's 'not what my character would do!' Maybe the evil dude always keeps his promises, or has a sense of personal loyalty to someone else in the party, or maybe the evil character is just smart enough to recognize that back-stabbing his party isn't a good idea. Frankly, the same goes for paladin types - just because you're this avatar of goodness and a cop doesn't mean you can't work with confidential informants or go undercover. If a character shows up that's flying a red flag or two, it's perfectly appropriate to require the player to tell you how he's going to deal with the potential for conflict. Make him explicit promise that his character is going to avoid intra-party conflict, and make clear that it is his responsibility to design his character like this.

There are media examples of how this works, too. TL/DR? You want a Jayne Cobb , not a Starscream .

16 minutes ago, Genuine said:

Maybe the evil dude always keeps his promises, or has a sense of personal loyalty to someone else in the party, or maybe the evil character is just smart enough to recognize that back-stabbing his party isn't a good idea.

That's the only way I'd tolerate it in my group. But I'd still be dubious: the PC's goals would likely conflict with that of the group, or compromise the group in some way, so we end up with the same inherent problem.

16 minutes ago, whafrog said:

That's the only way I'd tolerate it in my group. But I'd still be dubious: the PC's goals would likely conflict with that of the group, or compromise the group in some way, so we end up with the same inherent problem.

Conflicting goals among characters are ok, as long as the players don't have conflicting goals. A brief argument over whether to release prisoners, turn them over to [possibly corrupt] authorities, kill them, or sell them into slavery can be fun; especially if the one who wants to kill them isn't about to kill them in their sleep regardless of the party's consensus.

Well written, compelling characters should always have conflicting goals. Look at OOTS as an example of good characters: One wants vengeance against his father's killer, one is strictly obedient to his god, one just wants cash, one wants arcane power, one wants a compelling 3-act adventure, and one wants to just kill stuff. They all have conflicting goals that cause disagreement, but they all also have reasons to get along. When everyone is focused on the same goals it makes for boring roleplay.

Sometimes you'll get given a mission: orders to destroy an enemy base perhaps, or to assassinate an enemy commander. Do you do that via frontal assault, plant a nuke, or infiltrate and pick of soldiers one by one? What if the base isn't military base, but a civilian factory that provides medicine to the empire? Could you get the commander to defect instead of assassinating him? What if your commander is shady, and he's setting you up for an ambush? 'Good' characters will all disagree about how to handle this, and that's fine. Adding an 'evil' character to disagree doesn't change that dynamic.

If it turns into conflict out of character that is an entirely different problem. I'll agree entirely that evil characters tend to be made more often by players that are trying to provoke out-of-character-conflict, and hence the safeguards. But frankly, those players are going to cause problems regardless whether or not they have an evil character. You have to remember that the problem is the player, not the character.

Yeah and in case I didn't say it in my other post if you are ok with discord in the group or even find it to be a good source of drama then I understand that. My comments were just about my views of including a poison pill player in the group.

Good discussion, some good stuff here.

I think that I'm going to talk to the player and see just how far away from the group's ideals his character is going to be. If during the first session it seems that they are going to drag the party in directions the rest don't want to go, I'll have a more purposeful discussion about the direction they're trying to go. I'm hoping that the plot hooks I'm going to provide early on will unite the party rather than highlight the differences, but players can be difficult to predict...