I am planning a new Star Wars Campaign and I have decided to try a new formula for shaping the game. The players are relatively new to me but we have played for a few months now so I have gotten to know them and their problems as I see them for being able to play to the theme and tone of the setting. I wanted to post my plans as a contrast so many may see this as a do not do list lol, but maybe some will find it interesting and we can discuss the points. Here is my plan:

• Players will choose from general archetype slots to make their characters with no more than 2 of each: Soldier, Survivalist, Underworld, Social/Healer, Force Sensitive. There can be hybrids.
• No Droid PCs
• One Non-Human Alien, No more than 2 Near-Human Aliens
• Opposite Sex character to Player are limited to one unless a convincing argument can be presented in Session 0 as to why the character works better as non-player sex. No limitations on orientation.
• All Technology, Social Systems, Customs, and Equipment are not assumed to function as real-world or germane to likely usage. Players need to either not specify how something occurs, or ask as to how it works in that instance.
• Terminals are the way to contact persons and organizations. Comlinks are for buddies.
• The HoloNet is NOT the Internet. Slicing is more often done at the source. TeleSlicing is dangerous as all get out and will probably get you hunted.
• Story-Based XP: XP given at rate defined by each character's arc and role. XP will be given for advancement goals the players define for their concept.
• Narrative initiative will be used so points in Vigilance and Cool won't be used as much as in Standard Initiative.
• Character backstory needs to either be concise, or if elaborate must not create a character that does not actually fit in the game that will be played (don't make the Guildmaster Protege of the Bounty Hunters because you will resent being put in other types of stories).
• Real World cussing is largely out the window. Also Graphic sex, torture, alien cross-species sexual notions, etc. PG
• If you read it in the EU it probably didn't happen. Don't count on Wookieepedia lore being correct. It may very well be the way it is on the site, but it may not.
• Science Fantasy not Science Fiction. The point is that the setting is a place where technology creates a world we don't know, but Technology isn't the main character. Deep themes about tech are also not explored such as AI, Transhumanism, etc.
• Character Death is usually fatal. If your character actually dies, they are dead.

59 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

One Non-Human Alien, No more than 2 Near-Human Aliens

I would go with 1 human, no more than two near-humans.

Just now, Yaccarus said:

I would go with 1 human, no more than two near-humans.

Is that kind of the reverse of what I'm doing? Yeah I'm not super married to this point, it's a watery guideline. Some people make great Aliens. I just need enough humanity in the party so that I have enough room for relationships and what not. Closer than just you and I combine DPS in battle. Thanks for the post Yacc appreciate the discussion.

Just now, Archlyte said:

Is that kind of the reverse of what I'm doing? Yeah I'm not super married to this point, it's a watery guideline. Some people make great Aliens. I just need enough humanity in the party so that I have enough room for relationships and what not. Closer than just you and I combine DPS in battle. Thanks for the post Yacc appreciate the discussion.

I’m Yacc now. Alright, Arch:

Other thoughts:

• I can see the appeal of narrative initiative. It’s no secret that this game has a flawed initiative system. However, perhaps fix some things by saying that a. No PCs interchanging their slots and b. Adding difficulty die for vigilance
• Just because Wookieepedia isn’t perfect 100% of the time doesn’t mean it’s invalid. I personally quite like all of the lore, so assuming it to be correct is important. (By the way, I looked up an obscure Canon character and an obscure Legends character, and both had accurate information based on what I remember on them.)
• Your “no cussing” rule is nice, but for some crowds, (cough my player group cough) that might get you some odd looks.

18 minutes ago, Yaccarus said:

I’m Yacc now. Alright, Arch:

Other thoughts:

• I can see the appeal of narrative initiative. It’s no secret that this game has a flawed initiative system. However, perhaps fix some things by saying that a. No PCs interchanging their slots and b. Adding difficulty die for vigilance
• Just because Wookieepedia isn’t perfect 100% of the time doesn’t mean it’s invalid. I personally quite like all of the lore, so assuming it to be correct is important. (By the way, I looked up an obscure Canon character and an obscure Legends character, and both had accurate information based on what I remember on them.)
• Your “no cussing” rule is nice, but for some crowds, (cough my player group cough) that might get you some odd looks.

Sorry for the brevity Yaccarus, though I like Arch Yeah I have used the Narrative Initiative system enough now that the bugs are out of it and the group seems to like it better, to the point of the other guys who GM are using it too. I will admit that it's not for everyone though, and I like your ideas.

The Wookieepedia thing wasn't about the accuracy of the site, but it was more about the player presuming that because it was on there then it must be that way in game. For instance the FFG material gave Ord Mantell like 3 moons while wiki had 15. Most of the time their won't be a disagreement, but because of contradictions and stuff in there that I omit I felt it was a good idea to let them know that it's not reliable as an atlas.

I just get pulled out the game instantly when someone tells an NPC Foxtrot-Utah-Charlie-Kilo You ! I don't care for some of the in-universe cuss words because they sound lame, but it works better for me than the real world stuff. I imagine for a group who isn't too concerned about the immersion it's not a thing though so I get it. They would probably be like, give me a break, right?

6 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

I imagine for a group who isn't too concerned about the immersion it's not a thing though so I get it. They would probably be like, give me a break, right?

I thought you meant OOC or pre-game swearing. And I, too, would get a bit salty over non-Star Wars words being said “in character.”

Also, I’m okay with “Yacc.” It was a surprise to be sure, but a welcome one.

I like it, can you explain the archetypes in a little more detail?

1 minute ago, TEK said:

I like it, can you explain the archetypes in a little more detail?

My idea there was to help to steer the players into the net a little better while keeping it a wide net. I had some problems in a previous game with PCs that were really incompatible with one another and with the theme of the game, so this was my attempt to try and give them a rough guideline of what will work. I wanted to keep out wild oscillations I choice like the Evil Force User + Jedi Protector + Droid Assassin.

I also wanted the players to still be able to construct their characters and the group, but I was trying to get that to look like something that would fit the bill without too many duplicates. The exception would be an AoR Fighter Squadron or Ground Forces game, or FaD Jedi game. But for Edge I wanted to help get a group concept idea before individual characters ideas. They pick archetypes, we look at that combo, and then go from there.

2 hours ago, Archlyte said:

• Players will choose from general archetype slots to make their characters with no more than 2 of each: Soldier, Survivalist, Underworld, Social/Healer, Force Sensitive. There can be hybrids.
• No Droid PCs
• One Non-Human Alien, No more than 2 Near-Human Aliens
• Opposite Sex character to Player are limited to one unless a convincing argument can be presented in Session 0 as to why the character works better as non-player sex. No limitations on orientation.

You've lost me with these points.

I agree it is important to pass on a message that diversity is a key to succesful team and that everyone should not go for the same role/skills/race etc. But in all other respects I would not even date to limit the choices by the options provided in the books.

The players and their story should be what matters. If they all want to be soldiers / explorers / force sensitives - fine by me. They will soon learn they each want something different from the game and start to specialize. This would even mean that they've invested a lot of XP on things they don't want to improve any further - more challenge for PCs, more fun for me.

If they don't have some sort of a class, race in the team, but need it for the story, they will go out to look for relevant NPCs...

I might further divide the archetypes. Two “Underworld” archetype PCs are useless if they’re both Traders, but you’re good if one is a Thief instead. (Is this what you’re thinking for Underworld?)

Instead:

Combat: Max 2

Social: Max 2 (Make they get different roles, though: one focuses on deception and coercion, another charm and negotiation or something)

Pilot: Max 1

Medic: Max 1

Computers: Max 1

Sneaking Around: Max 1

General Knowledge: Max 1

Mechanics: Max 1

Outdoors: Max 1

17 minutes ago, thesaviour said:

You've lost me with these points.

I agree it is important to pass on a message that diversity is a key to succesful team and that everyone should not go for the same role/skills/race etc. But in all other respects I would not even date to limit the choices by the options provided in the books.

The players and their story should be what matters. If they all want to be soldiers / explorers / force sensitives - fine by me. They will soon learn they each want something different from the game and start to specialize. This would even mean that they've invested a lot of XP on things they don't want to improve any further - more challenge for PCs, more fun for me.

If they don't have some sort of a class, race in the team, but need it for the story, they will go out to look for relevant NPCs...

Thank you for your post thesaviour. I agree with your principle but I am kind of tired of the character salad and I would like to get something going with this next campaign that is a bit more focused. I do agree completely and think that is a great point about the party seeking out NPCs for what they need to get done, but I don't think my way of doing this gets rid of that. I am not trying to have some sort of a guideline to construct a well-oiled machine, I just don't want oil and water.

18 minutes ago, Yaccarus said:

I might further divide the archetypes. Two “Underworld” archetype PCs are useless if they’re both Traders, but you’re good if one is a Thief instead. (Is this what you’re thinking for Underworld?)

Instead:

Combat: Max 2

Social: Max 2 (Make they get different roles, though: one focuses on deception and coercion, another charm and negotiation or something)

Pilot: Max 1

Medic: Max 1

Computers: Max 1

Sneaking Around: Max 1

General Knowledge: Max 1

Mechanics: Max 1

Outdoors: Max 1

Yeah that's a good point, I was thinking that 2 Underworld types would be pushing it to begin with, but if one is a Mechanic and the other is a Social or Combat character it would be fine. I allowed for hybrids so I think that is in the spirit of what you are talking about. This is a good guideline you have created in my opinion and I will use it.

I would take away the cross-species relationship ban. It's been a part of the setting for a long time, doesn't have to be between a lamprey and a wolfman though. That also makes sure that player characters can get into relationships even if there is a lack of humans.

I wouldn't be as hung up on archetypes either. Party balance is an option, but I rarely find it to be necessary, either as a player or a GM. You can get around the problems if you're creative.

2 minutes ago, Darth Revenant said:

I would take away the cross-species relationship ban. It's been a part of the setting for a long time, doesn't have to be between a lamprey and a wolfman though. That also makes sure that player characters can get into relationships even if there is a lack of humans.

I wouldn't be as hung up on archetypes either. Party balance is an option, but I rarely find it to be necessary, either as a player or a GM. You can get around the problems if you're creative.

Could you maybe give me an example of what you mean by cross-species? I am familiar with the Lamprey and the Wolfman from the old anthology paperback, and that was an interesting story but I doubt players would pull it off.

Twi'lek and human, rodian and human, nautolan and human. Well you can swap them all around, but i hope the general gist of it all comes through.

Clone Wars had a deserter clone who married a Twi'lek farmer and settled down. Ahurra Sing was shown to have had an old fling with famous Weeqay pirate Hondo Ohnaka. It can still be keept quite PG.

Also frak, frell, kriffing are all in universe swearing and i use them often for a few charecters i play all of which are aliens.

I play an ex slave omwati cyborg tech wiz MacGyver

A drunk gunslinging gand

Also

gunslinger/seer pantorian ex-marshal

Ewok marshal tuff guy

Tusken trailblazer survivor of a massacre turned rebel...

I've never played a human. Probably won't.

3 minutes ago, Darth Revenant said:

Twi'lek and human, rodian and human, nautolan and human. Well you can swap them all around, but i hope the general gist of it all comes through.

Clone Wars had a deserter clone who married a Twi'lek farmer and settled down. Ahurra Sing was shown to have had an old fling with famous Weeqay pirate Hondo Ohnaka. It can still be keept quite PG.

Yeah I can't hang with the Rodian and Human thing. Yeah sure love conquers all and you could have this kind of a relationship but to me it just seems so improbable and would require careful handling for it not to just get weird. Rodians are some kind of reptoid amphibian species with a smell that many other races find repugnant. Would take a giant pile of favorable conditions to make that one work. The Twi'lek/Human thing I can see, but that's why I allowed for near-humans. I think the Weequay/Near Human thing works too but it would be one of those things that is far more likely to not happen and would probably be more a result of the PC Nameplate than the characters' motivations and emotions.

4 hours ago, Archlyte said:

• Story-Based XP: XP given at rate defined by each character's arc and role. XP will be given for advancement goals the players define for their concept.
• Character Death is usually fatal. If your character actually dies, they are dead.

What in the world do these mean?

22 minutes ago, BrickSteelhead said:

What in the world do these mean?

You know that thread which was like:

”PC ‘changes mind’ on character death?”

I think that’s what Arch is referring to.

53 minutes ago, BrickSteelhead said:

What in the world do these mean?

Well Yaccarus is right about the Death thing.

The XP thing is more complicated. Regular XP is awarded by session with an arbitrary award of I think 5-20 points average with a bonus 5 for playing to motivation. So players climb their talent ladders, gain skill points, and buy new specializations based on a drip drip drip of XP. I use a system where I give XP based mainly on the player's plans for the character (and if they don't have one that's ok) and the story. I like to make these changes in power purposeful. I came from games like Mythras and Traveller where there isn't standard D&D pro forma progression, and I find that with power progression the players often like to have some control over that beyond the usual meter. If a player wants to do force Sensitive, we can work up a way for the character to have progression that makes sense for the level of discovery and training available. Or for a Pilot character there can be training and experience that explain a big jump in ability. Basically big boy rules.

10 hours ago, Yaccarus said:

• Your “no cussing” rule is nice, but for some crowds, (cough my player group cough) that might get you some odd looks.

I have no f***ing idea what you're talking about...

15 hours ago, Archlyte said:

Thank you for your post thesaviour. I agree with your principle but I am kind of tired of the character salad and I would like to get something going with this next campaign that is a bit more focused. I do agree completely and think that is a great point about the party seeking out NPCs for what they need to get done, but I don't think my way of doing this gets rid of that. I am not trying to have some sort of a guideline to construct a well-oiled machine, I just don't want oil and water.

I get your point. I would just try to spend some more time at character creation and discussions of what game you like to have. this can be equally fun as playing. i after an open discussion they still want to be a "character salad" as you say, so be it.

18 hours ago, Archlyte said:

Narrative initiative will be used so points in Vigilance and Cool won't be used as much as in Standard Initiative.

You're nerfing Vigilance and Cool which makes Careers that feature this skill much less appealing to play.

To be honest, I think you're coming at this with too many preconceived ideas. I think it's okay to have an idea of what you want to see happen but shoehorning players into it is going to make for a frustrating and, ultimately, un-fun game. I'd suggest opening up a dialog with your players. Share your motivation for this prerequisites and seeing what they say. If they seem reticent, ask them what would appeal to them. Then open up negotiations until you have a game that everyone is happy with.

2 hours ago, Concise Locket said:

You're nerfing Vigilance and Cool which makes Careers that feature this skill much less appealing to play.

To be honest, I think you're coming at this with too many preconceived ideas. I think it's okay to have an idea of what you want to see happen but shoehorning players into it is going to make for a frustrating and, ultimately, un-fun game. I'd suggest opening up a dialog with your players. Share your motivation for this prerequisites and seeing what they say. If they seem reticent, ask them what would appeal to them. Then open up negotiations until you have a game that everyone is happy with.

I implemented that system a while back and it has been fine. They get the benefit of the doubt most of the time so it's not something that is perceived as a nerf on the characters. Systems exist for people, not the other way around, and I found that existing initiative system to be a slow down and not really anything I liked. The Narrative Initiative system has allowed our combats to be about your intended action not about when it happens as a mechanic to be resolved on top of actions. I agree that the book has initiative bolstered for some careers through those skills, but because that is a moot point then I tell the players to not put points into those skills just for the sake of trying to get the first shot. If they have a talent that does that then I give that ability deference in the narrative.

As for shoehorning, I believe that you are right that I am basically editing out some possibilities, but they are possibilities that I am tired of seeing for now. I have the buy-in of the players so I'm good there, but I think that there is a thing in RPG forum discussions that exists in which a generalized set of rules is implemented by the social body. I don't ascribe to that, and instead I take each situation as it's own thing. In one moment it may be right to railroad, in another it isn't.

Can you maybe elaborate for me a bit on why you feel these things are inherently frustrating and un-fun?

I need to amend the list also to discuss character power levels and arcs by concept. Someone with a higher starting ability level (XP) won't get an increase for a while, while a character that is built to be a neophyte who progresses may have more frequent upgrades along story mini-goals to illustrate their growing ability. A Grizzled Veteran could start higher in XP but more or less be at plateau, while another character could have a constantly climbing power arc (more like regular XP in schedule) or something more like a parabola where in the middle of the journey they progress the most with drop offs on either end. Things change too in the course of a campaign, so that can be accommodated as well.