I have always been under the impression that Nemesis were like anything other NPC in any other game--that they were killed when they exceeded their wound threshold, unless the GM spent a destiny point to have them make an escape because they were central to the plot--a recurring villain who wasn't supposed to be killed yet or something.

I just read through Hidden Depths and I discovered I had it wrong. At least technically. The adventure points out that Ironarm, as a nemesis, is capable of surviving past his wound threshold, and, barring specific action taken from the PCs will survive the adventure to optionally haunt the PCs later, unless the PCs take specific action to prevent this from happening (i.e. decapitating his unconscious body). I double checked the nemesis section of the CRB and, yep, Nemesis are like PCs in every regard.

My thoughts are that it might be interesting to, ONCE, bring an NPC back that the PCs left for dead, particularly if they had to flee the scene really fast and there was a plausible means for the NPC to not bleed to death. However, if, as the rules imply, ALL nemesis enemies can do this, the PCs are going to start coup de gracing corpses left and right to make sure there aren't survivors as a matter of habit. You could argue whether or not this is ethical, but either way the GM has put them in a position where the players feel this is necessary, and that should set off some warning lights. I'm of the opinion that if a GM doesn't want to see behavior in game from his PCs, he shouldn't encourage it by making it the 'smart' thing to do.

From the player's perspective, if you can't actually kill nemesis unless you cheap shot them when they're already down (or by a lucky crit), that takes a lot of fun out of the game.

This has been bothering me for days, as this seems like a crap rule to me, both as a GM and a player, and I wanted the community's opinions on how they handled defeated nemeses.

Well a way to use this is to revaluation what you consider to be a nemesis, ecause as the name implies, a nemesis is an npc that should be a focus for the characters and an equal challenge to them, most npcs are not going to be this, and likely only one npc in every story arc is going to be able to be classified as a nemisis, with everything else being rivals or minions.

If you want, don’t tell your players this aspect of nemesis npcs, there’s no reason they should know, and hopefully if they have found out then they will not meta game about it, although if they have had more than a few instances where their ultimate for came back seemingly from the dead in the same way PCs do then I could see a prudent pc adopting the “best to make certain” outlook, which might not be a problem, they’d have a reason to act that way, I think the only time it should be a problem is if it’s created by meta knowledge.

Most of the time when Nemesises go down I don't really have them fall unconscious. Instead, they're just too severely injured to fight back; lying on the ground in a lot of pain, maybe bleeding out depending on their crit situation. Lets the players get in some last minute conversation, and potentially keep the Nemesis alive if they have a reason to.

I think it's much more dramatic and fun to have the big bad villain give a bitter pre-death speech through ragged breaths before the players finish him off than having him just collapse to the floor dead or unconscious.

Obviously it's all highly situational and variety is ideal, but I think having someone pass out when they go over wound threshold is the most boring option.

A nemesis is going to survive an encounter in one of two ways. First, hes going to beat the bejesus out of the PC's until they are either dead or running away. Second, the nemesis is going to cut and run as soon as things start looking sketchy for them.

My players tend to take down...lets call them minor nemesis NPC's. They have nemesis abilities and gear and all the perks of being a nemesis, but in the grand scheme of the game, they aren't much. They have yet to encounter a major nemesis NPC.

On 2017-11-16 at 8:29 PM, Kirdan Kenobi said:

the PCs are going to start coup de gracing corpses left and right to make sure there aren't survivors as a matter of habit.

Are the PCs psycopaths? Will they routinely walk up to helpless foes and execute them? If so, maybe you should start making such behaviour have consequences.

How would the players react if they got incapacitated, and the enemies calmly executed them? Is this what you have led them to expect?

Try having the next nemesis that goes down remain conscious, but helpless, and perhaps state their case, or even beg for mercy, or demand to be treated as a prisoner of war, or calmly accept their fate because all rebels are known to be heartless scum anyway. Have the nemesis ask the PCs to tell his family he fought bravely.

Hey, maybe even have them make a roll to be able to pull the trigger in such a situation. Probably an easy one, but still.

Guilt the **** out of them.

15 hours ago, penpenpen said:

Are the PCs psycopaths? Will they routinely walk up to helpless foes and execute them? If so, maybe you should start making such behaviour have consequences.

How would the players react if they got incapacitated, and the enemies calmly executed them? Is this what you have led them to expect?

Try having the next nemesis that goes down remain conscious, but helpless, and perhaps state their case, or even beg for mercy, or demand to be treated as a prisoner of war, or calmly accept their fate because all rebels are known to be heartless scum anyway. Have the nemesis ask the PCs to tell his family he fought bravely.

Hey, maybe even have them make a roll to be able to pull the trigger in such a situation. Probably an easy one, but still.

Guilt the **** out of them.

I said the PCs will start coup de gracing once you start bringing nemeses 'back from the dead.' This is doubly true if there are negative narrative consequences for their survival, for instance, if that ISB agent or bounty hunter or whatever saw they were using lightsabers and decided to call in the inquisitors on them, especially if their characters would have no reason to suspect that such a thing would happen. Also as I said it then becomes the smart thing to do to ensure their survival (and further keeps the nemeses in question from hurting anyone else). Look, we could argue all day about whether it's moral to finish off an helpless bad guy who will most likely harm them or others in the future (I have no interest in such an argument, as I this being an issue of honorability more than morality), but whether it is immoral or not, this is not something I want to see in my games, and I think it's bad GMing to punish behavior that the GM has encouraged (in this case, by making it seem necessary to the group's continued welfare). Point being if a GM doesn't want to see a particular behavior in his games, he shouldn't make the players feel that behavior is necessary, especially on a continual basis.

While there's nothing wrong with the occasional moral dilemma in an RPG, especially if that's something your players enjoy, other players don't like moral dilemmas, especially if they're presented with 'damned if you, damned if you don't' situations.

What I'm looking for with this thread is alternative ways to treat defeated nemesis, as I see foresee these problems I've mentioned with using them as written, where they automatically survive, unless the crit table says otherwise.

As an aside, with the exception of something like fear or other mind-effecting abilities, I don't think it's a good idea to require rolls for what the player has decided their character wants to do if success or failure is not an issue (I'm pretty sure shooting someone in the head who can't resist is automatic) Sure a nice GM might allow something like a knowledge roll to see if their character knows (even if the player doesn't) that the proposed action could be disastrous, such as making a social faux pas with an important NPC, but that doesn't prevent them from taking the action, it just gives them more information.

I see the Nemesis survival rules more as an option than anything. If you plan for and need an NPC to be a foil for the PCs, it is very convenient to have a rule to point to about how that character could have survived an encounter the PCs won. "You don't die when you go down, either" is a good point when discussing a major villain and will make the PCs that much more determined to eventually end the threat for good.

It's also a solid way to include some iconic characters. Maybe the PCs get really lucky and drop Bossk - so long as they don't walk up and decapitate the body, he can still exist in your universe, and likely give the PCs a little dread if they hear about him bringing in a big bounty in a nearby sector.

Both those being said, there's nothing wrong with having a Nemesis die when it's thematically appropriate. It's a narrative game, after all, and if your story works best that way, awesome.

3 minutes ago, Kirdan Kenobi said:

While there's nothing wrong with the occasional moral dilemma in an RPG, especially if that's something your players enjoy, other players don't like moral dilemmas, especially if they're presented with 'damned if you, damned if you don't' situations.

I actually hit my Force and Destiny players with this constantly. In my game, it's not just Nemeses that can survive combat, it's everyone. When a group of minions is defeated, I roll a green die for each minion. Every die that shows a success is one minion that survives. If there's a reason to get really into it, advantage means he's alive but will die without immediate medical attention, double success means he's barely even wounded, and so forth. Of course, this isn't always necessary, because if you just blasted a dozen stormtroopers and ran, who cares? It might be good if you're looking to interrogate prisoners.

With Rivals, I just roll a crit as usual, and then have the rival roll Resilience against the difficulty of that crit. If he makes it, he lives, if not, he probably dies.

It should be noted that in some adventures, the text calls for key NPCs to die if they exceed their Wound Threshold. If you want them alive, you need to put them over their Strain. I would certainly let your players know that special rules are in place ahead of time.

10 minutes ago, The Grand Falloon said:

I actually hit my Force and Destiny players with this constantly. In my game, it's not just Nemeses that can survive combat, it's everyone. When a group of minions is defeated, I roll a green die for each minion. Every die that shows a success is one minion that survives. If there's a reason to get really into it, advantage means he's alive but will die without immediate medical attention, double success means he's barely even wounded, and so forth. Of course, this isn't always necessary, because if you just blasted a dozen stormtroopers and ran, who cares? It might be good if you're looking to interrogate prisoners.

With Rivals, I just roll a crit as usual, and then have the rival roll Resilience against the difficulty of that crit. If he makes it, he lives, if not, he probably dies.

It should be noted that in some adventures, the text calls for key NPCs to die if they exceed their Wound Threshold. If you want them alive, you need to put them over their Strain. I would certainly let your players know that special rules are in place ahead of time.

So is your F&D game kind of like Exalted D&D (above and beyond simply being good and heroic, but being so noble you you will heal fallen enemies to try and get them to change their ways)? Such games can be interesting, but the catch is it's vital that everyone be on board with the idea.

1 hour ago, Kirdan Kenobi said:

I said the PCs will start coup de gracing once you start bringing nemeses 'back from the dead.' This is doubly true if there are negative narrative consequences for their survival, for instance, if that ISB agent or bounty hunter or whatever saw they were using lightsabers and decided to call in the inquisitors on them, especially if their characters would have no reason to suspect that such a thing would happen. Also as I said it then becomes the smart thing to do to ensure their survival (and further keeps the nemeses in question from hurting anyone else). Look, we could argue all day about whether it's moral to finish off an helpless bad guy who will most likely harm them or others in the future (I have no interest in such an argument, as I this being an issue of honorability more than morality), but whether it is immoral or not, this is not something I want to see in my games, and I think it's bad GMing to punish behavior that the GM has encouraged (in this case, by making it seem necessary to the group's continued welfare). Point being if a GM doesn't want to see a particular behavior in his games, he shouldn't make the players feel that behavior is necessary, especially on a continual basis.

Well, if you're up front with the nemesis being down but not dead, your players can't really complain that him being "back from the dead" is an unfair surprise. Of course, this means that your players feel forced to finish off the nemesis, but that isn't always an option. If you're in a firefight with imperial troops, most of the times you need to finish up and leave before reinforcement, or fihgt a retreating battle against increasing odds until you can do whatever you need to do and get out. Unless the PCs have their own army backing them, this should be true for most crime syndicates, local law enforcement and other people that Nemeses tend to surround themselves with. Finishing off the BBEG needn't be moral choice, it could be a tactical one. Stay and risk your mission objective or escape to make sure the nemesis is out of the fight.

Or, the cinematic approach: Have a cutscene where you describe the fallen nemesis is found by his underlings, they check his vitals and... you ask the players if he made it, and have them flip a destiny point if they want him to be dead. Or maybe you describe the wounded Nemeses getting back on his feet after the PCs leave, take a look at the exploding space station around him and head for the escape pods. Ask the players if there are any left and maybe have them flip a destiny point. Or you describe the seemingly dead nemesis on the floor, and how his eyes suddenly open as YOU flip a destiny point from dark to light. This should make it less arbitrary, and the players get a say in the matter without having their characters go around executing people.

1 hour ago, Kirdan Kenobi said:

While there's nothing wrong with the occasional moral dilemma in an RPG, especially if that's something your players enjoy, other players don't like moral dilemmas, especially if they're presented with 'damned if you, damned if you don't' situations.

If there's an option that doesn't suck in some way, it's not a dilemma now, is it?

1 hour ago, Kirdan Kenobi said:

What I'm looking for with this thread is alternative ways to treat defeated nemesis, as I see foresee these problems I've mentioned with using them as written, where they automatically survive, unless the crit table says otherwise.

Apart from the options above, it's valid to ignopre the crit table and simply rule that they're dead. Or not. Maybe let the narrative decide what's resonable. If the nemesis goes down after taking a proton rocket to the face... maybe it's reasonable to simply rule him dead. Someone got his last wounds by clocking him with their trusty brass knuckles? Maybe it's more reasonable if he survives.

1 hour ago, Kirdan Kenobi said:

As an aside, with the exception of something like fear or other mind-effecting abilities, I don't think it's a good idea to require rolls for what the player has decided their character wants to do if success or failure is not an issue (I'm pretty sure shooting someone in the head who can't resist is automatic) Sure a nice GM might allow something like a knowledge roll to see if their character knows (even if the player doesn't) that the proposed action could be disastrous, such as making a social faux pas with an important NPC, but that doesn't prevent them from taking the action, it just gives them more information.

Of course, to each their own, and if you feel your players would hate having to roll for such a thing, it's probably wise not to do it (unless you want to, and think you could bring them around). A softer version of hit would be to let them execute whomever they like but maybe roll a fear check afterwards to see how well they deal with it. If that suits your players and campaign of course. Not everyone likes to play moments of weakness and vulnerability. It's perfectly valid to just play heroic badasses who kick butt and take names, and things aren't more complicated than that the bad guys are bad and the good guys are good. Or anything in between, really.

EDIT: Forgot the action movie classic where the bad guy is down, and either begging for his life or goading the the hero to finish him, all while trying to get his holdout blaster out to sneakily shoot the hero. Naturally, the hero will be faster and there will be no moral complications for finishing the sneaky Nemesis off.

35 minutes ago, Kirdan Kenobi said:

So is your F&D game kind of like Exalted D&D (above and beyond simply being good and heroic, but being so noble you you will heal fallen enemies to try and get them to change their ways)? Such games can be interesting, but the catch is it's vital that everyone be on board with the idea.

I'd say that would be the definition of being good and heroic, rather than just simply restricting your violence to the designated bad guys.

lot of interesting points brought up here, i think the point of the nemesis ability to stay alive is to emulate what happened in much of the movies, darth vader didn't die when he was hit by han because he was a nemesis and it was necessary in the storyline for him to continue, jabba was also a nemesis but he died because leia made sure of it, bobba fett was a nemesis and depending on who you ask he lived and/or died. ****, darth maul was cut in half and that dude stayed alive.

i agree with what was stated above

1 hour ago, JRRP said:

I see the Nemesis survival rules more as an option than anything. If you plan for and need an NPC to be a foil for the PCs, it is very convenient to have a rule to point to about how that character could have survived an encounter the PCs won. "You don't die when you go down, either" is a good point when discussing a major villain and will make the PCs that much more determined to eventually end the threat for good.

this in my opinion is a very good way of looking at it, keeping the nemesis alive is not something that you always have to do. the emperor didn't survive being thrown down a shaft by vader, vader didn't survive the attack from the emperor, tarkin didn't survive the destruction of the first death star, and i really which kylo wouldn't have survived the destruction of starkiller base lol, because their role in the story was no longer important.

i think the best thing to do with your players is have a discussion with them about this, make it clear that you as their gm are not going to be vindictive and abuse this mechanic potential, but that you will use it as is appropriate and that when you do it will advance the story and increase the experience, and then you have to trust your players not to use meta knowledge to behave in a way outside of what thier characters would do, because quite honestly, some characters would make sure their enemies are dead, leia did and would do again i belive because she has a very practical morality, where as han and luke likely would not do the same, so knowing your players and their characters adapt to how they would react.

Could have them turn up for example being a prisoner in an Imperial prison or hospitalised and they learn they survived but aren't going anywhere whilst they're recovering.

Or have him know something the PCs want to find out but because he's incapacitated he needs their help in return this giving your player's the chance to gain a new Ally and maybe occasional rival but likely to warn them of an impending peril thus making this worth it?