alright so i'm currently trying to figure out what to do when fighting weak or any npcs (in a current game im in as well future ones). currently the gm and players are treating when we reduce someone to 0 wounds they are killed no matter what weapon we are using. im thinking that where that makes sense for some weapons and situations it isn't always the case when fighting someone. so my number 1 question is "does the rulebooks say when an npc (important or not as i know there are different kinds of npcs) is reduce to 0 or greater wounds (execpt for the ones treated like players) that they die?" if no then it is a gm/player choice (depending).

if thats the case what would u say in these examples will happen? is there a way to not kill with these weapons when reducing someone to zero?
Lightsaber? (+aim?)
blasters? (+aim?)
arrows? (+aim?)
explosive arrows? (+aim?)
Ancient Swords? (+aim?)
(so far these are the current weapons we have to use and covers most other weapons. what i mean +aim? is what if u took the aim action before hitting. it allows you to target a certian area instead of gaining boost. would this then allow for someone to aim for a part on a body that would yes badly wound and hurt but not kill only knock out by either loss of blood, a lot of pain at once, or hitting a non lethal area that would knock someone out. as we see in movies when someone says "he is ok i just shot him here, he wont die")

As you will see often on these forums, this is a story- and narrative-driven game where the mechanics are meant to support the story. So the short answer to the question "what happens when an NPC reaches 0 wounds?" is "whatever needs to happen for the story."

The wound threshold doesn't necessarily mean that the NPC is wounded, and reaching 0 wounds just means that a character is out of the fight. Case in point: Scathing Tirade and similar talents that inflict strain damage that turns into Wounds for minions. Does that mean your words actually lacerate them and cause them to suffer damage? No, of course not. The things your character says and does takes them out of the fight in one way or another; they may flee, or lay down their weapons, or surrender, or stand around scratching their heads.

Combat resolution can be equally varied, and while it's true that minions are meant to be mown through by the PCs, that doesn't have to be literally true. A stormtrooper brought to 0 Wounds by a lightsaber could be disarmed, with his armor lying around him in shreds. Is he dead? No, but he's combat ineffective and willing to surrender. You can be as gritty or as fantastic as you like with your narration, just remember that the mechanics support the narrative, not drive it.

I believe Wounds are an actual threshold. So, your woulds pretty much count up when taking damage. If at wound threshold, player or NPC is still up. As for whether they live or die, pretty much up to GM or maybe the player in some cases.

I would do what makes sense. Stun weapons don't kill, because they stun. . .

For lethal weapons. . . Almost all minions probably die because they are unimportant. Most Rivals will probably also die when reaching above wound threshold. Nemeses and PCs are a different story. You could always come up with a narrative reason as for why that Nemesis or PC lived. Generally, if a killing blow would take that PC or Nemesis out of sight of everyone, there is plenty of room to add a narrative as to how that PC or Nemesis lived.

Hope this helped.

An NPC that exceeds his wound threshold is out of the fight and incapacitated. Anything beyond that is the GM's prerogative.

Think of it like this; if this enemy is of such little importance to the story that s/he has no name, no face and no personality, is there a point in establishing anything beyond that they fall down and stop fighting?

I get the impression that you are looking for the possibility of non-lethal takedowns, and if you're playing a character who tries to keep his body count down, even the deaths of faceless minions could very well be a very big deal.

If you want to avoid killing an npc ask your GM what it would take. It might just be a matter of setting a blaster to stun, but could also involve taking careful aim (and several setback dice) with you lightsaber. Also, if an NPC keels over and the GM pronounces him dead, you should feel free to reach for a destiny point while asking the GM if that guy didnt make it after all.

Star Wars Legends establishes that stun weapons aren't 100% nonlethal, and can in rare cases cause fatal injuries or potentially fatal complications (and that they have a better than 50-50 shot at provoking a miscarriage in pregnant females). So even a minion dropped by a stun weapon could be declared by the GM, though I can't think of a reason off the top of my head to do so, I'm sure one exists.

This can actually be a cool tool for the GM. In my game, I've never really defined if dropped mocks are dead or not. But imagine: take some of the more interesting minions your PCs have downed, rework them as rivals or nemeses, then reveal to the players that they've survived, and banded together for revenge as a kind of Quirky Mini-Boss Squad.

1 hour ago, ErikModi said:

Star Wars Legends establishes that stun weapons aren't 100% nonlethal, and can in rare cases cause fatal injuries or potentially fatal complications (and that they have a better than 50-50 shot at provoking a miscarriage in pregnant females). So even a minion dropped by a stun weapon could be declared by the GM, though I can't think of a reason off the top of my head to do so, I'm sure one exists.

This can actually be a cool tool for the GM. In my game, I've never really defined if dropped mocks are dead or not. But imagine: take some of the more interesting minions your PCs have downed, rework them as rivals or nemeses, then reveal to the players that they've survived, and banded together for revenge as a kind of Quirky Mini-Boss Squad.

Of course, that also sounds like a good idea for making sure your group never leaves any opponent alive again, depending on your ratio of Quirky to Boss.

Personally, in the interest of narrative, I'd leave it up to the players whether they want to kill or disable enemies, with the caveat that "disable" will very likely mean "maim" if they don't use actually less-lethal weaponry like stun blasters. If they want a harmless takedown with a lethal weapon, spend a triumph to sunder a weapon.

2 hours ago, ErikModi said:

Star Wars Legends establishes that stun weapons aren't 100% nonlethal, and can in rare cases cause fatal injuries or potentially fatal complications (and that they have a better than 50-50 shot at provoking a miscarriage in pregnant females). So even a minion dropped by a stun weapon could be declared by the GM, though I can't think of a reason off the top of my head to do so, I'm sure one exists.

This can actually be a cool tool for the GM. In my game, I've never really defined if dropped mocks are dead or not. But imagine: take some of the more interesting minions your PCs have downed, rework them as rivals or nemeses, then reveal to the players that they've survived, and banded together for revenge as a kind of Quirky Mini-Boss Squad.

I love that! Every now and then there's this throwaway minor NPC enemy that through sheer luck manages to exceptionally well, and in-game comes off as this unexpected badass. It's always awesome if one of them comes back later, now with the stats to match his performance. Using a bunch of them form a quirky miniboss squad is sheer brilliance!

Imagine this band of scarred, disparate souls banding together; the bounty hunter with the cybernetic arm in lieu of the one lost to a lightsaber, the stormtrooper with the blaster-burned face, the pirate who lost his eye to the claws of an enraged wookiee and the haunted pilot who survived being trapped in the wreck of his TIE for days after smashing into and killing his wingman due to a well-timed corellian sendoff. What to they have in common? Revenge!

It's even better when the players pick their favorites by using destiny points, because then you don't have to worry about them not quite agreeing with you about how cool that NPC really was and thus reducing to chance of someone groaning "not that guy again" or even worse: "I don't remember this person".

12 minutes ago, Cifer said:

Of course, that also sounds like a good idea for making sure your group never leaves any opponent alive again, depending on your ratio of Quirky to Boss.

I'm not sure why players would act that way. If they do, ask them.

I mean, do the players think this will cut down on the number or lethality of future encounters? I mean, a GM's job is to provide opposition suitable to the theme of his campaign, so he's probably going to throw that level of opposition at them anyway, which leaves the players with the choice of having this opposition being completely new characters or the possibility of someone they have a history with. Of course, either can be fun, but I'd say that one has a higher likelihood.

Of course, you can reject that line of thinking as stupid metagaming, and defend the characters actions by pointing out that from their point of view, it makes sense to routinely execute downed enemies on the off chance that they'd come back for another round.
Congratulations, your group of PCs are murderous sociopaths who are likely to attract more people looking for vengeance, or in this case more like justice, for their friends, family, partners, fellow officers etc. I hope you've read up on the Dark side parts of the morality rules!

This argument pops all the time, and I can't really for the life of me understand why players would go out of their way remove possibilities for the GM to flesh out the campaign in an organic way. The only reason I can think of is that there is such mistrust of the GM, that such possibilities will only be used to screw over the players and PCs. To me it seems symptomatic of a gaming group where GM and players have an adversarial relationship where each side focuses on beating the other. Which is pointless, since the GM has the "rocks fall, everybody dies"-card. But of course, if he plays it, he's labelled a "bad GM", without any thought given to the quality of the players.

If this sounds like your group, maybe have a talk about what you want from the game. Maybe throw a little trust to the other side. Players, maybe don't try to outsmart the GM constantly. GM, maybe let the players outsmart you every now and then. Give it a shot, you might like it. If not, you can always go back to trying to kill each other. Or each other's characters if you prefer.

1 hour ago, Cifer said:

Of course, that also sounds like a good idea for making sure your group never leaves any opponent alive again, depending on your ratio of Quirky to Boss.

And then you get to pile on the Conflict. Win-win!!

@penpenpen

It's basically simulationism versus gamism/narrativism. In a simulated world, not everything is a level-appropriate challenge. If you make sure enemies don't oppose you in the future (whether by bribing them, threatening them, killing them or whatever), the Big Bad won't magically conjure new ones to replace them. And if those are the parameters you're playing by, you should settle on a certain level of "out" that keeps most NPCs from being further threats.

If you have players that want to lean back and enjoy the ride you've prepared, sure thing - reoccuring opponents are certainly better than faceless goons. But if your players value their agency and want for their actions to truly have impact on the narrative rather than just slightly leaning out of the train on its right or left side while it goes along its rails, that comes with them hopefully accepting responsibility for their actions and inactions.

@ErikModi

Up to a point, absolutely. It all comes down to how often you pull this and what kind of story you and your players enjoy - too little and the opposition lacks in recognizable faces, too much of it ("Darth Reocurrus who you didn't kill last week? She just blew up the orphanage!") and you better have some players who either enjoy the sliding down the slope or playing some guilt-ridden wrecks.

wounds exceed threshold the C falls down, drops weapon, suffers a crit this is covered in RAW under death

@Cifer

That's exactly my point. If it's simulationism, the PCs are psychos. If it narrativism, the players are pointlessly obstructionist.

1 hour ago, penpenpen said:

@Cifer

That's exactly my point. If it's simulationism, the PCs are psychos. If it narrativism, the players are pointlessly obstructionist.

They are psychos as long as the story doesn't prove them absolutely right. The reason militaries are fine with incapacitating enemies in war is that wounded people don't usually get back to fighting any time soon with real-world medicine (instead, they actually block more ressources than corpses would with their transport and treatment). If incapacitated soldiers would be back on the field in days or weeks rather than months at best, wars might well look rather different, with far more consideration given to making sure opponents are dead rather than disabled. In the same way, if you teach your players that anyone they don't get rid of permanently will likely return, they may well learn that lesson.

So my advice would be: If you want your players to not turn every operation into a slaughterfest, reward them for it. People mostly don't come after them, because it's far easier to swallow your pride over a few bruised ribs than to forego revenge over the father killed by Darth Vader (from a certain point of view™) . Maybe yesterday's spared enemy even turns into today's reluctant ally.

10 hours ago, Cifer said:

They are psychos as long as the story doesn't prove them absolutely right.

Nope. In this context we are talking about executing incapacitated, helpless foes, which is murder in war as well as peace. Anyone engaging in this on a regular basis would not be merely a murderer, but a mass murderer, regardless of who the victims are.

10 hours ago, Cifer said:

The reason militaries are fine with incapacitating enemies in war is that wounded people don't usually get back to fighting any time soon with real-world medicine (instead, they actually block more ressources than corpses would with their transport and treatment). If incapacitated soldiers would be back on the field in days or weeks rather than months at best, wars might well look rather different, with far more consideration given to making sure opponents are dead rather than disabled. In the same way, if you teach your players that anyone they don't get rid of permanently will likely return, they may well learn that lesson.

First of all, a wounded is only as good as a dead one in a full scale war of attirition, and not quite applicable in modern warfare. In addition, from a strict attirition perspective, a dead enemy is preferrable to captured one, a prisoners are a drain on your own resources, yet we treat the killing of surrendering enemies as a heinous war crime.

Murder doesn't magically become ok when it's practical.

10 hours ago, Cifer said:

So my advice would be: If you want your players to not turn every operation into a slaughterfest, reward them for it. People mostly don't come after them, because it's far easier to swallow your pride over a few bruised ribs than to forego revenge over the father killed by Darth Vader (from a certain point of view™) . Maybe yesterday's spared enemy even turns into today's reluctant ally.

Well, if you just got your nose bloodied in bar fight, it might be fine to walk away, but if a bunch of rebel criminals just tore through a dozen good cops trying to lawfully apprehend them, you'd not only expect the survivors to want to come after them, it would be their duty to do it.

Of course, noone has advocated re-using every last surviving enemy, merely the memorable ones (which by definition includes very few minions). I mean, if someone not memorable is re-used it will have zero impact.

And as you point out, they need not be re-used as enemies (but I'd avoid instant "defeat means friendship" scenarios, as it's been done to death), or at least respected enemies.

As the three current game lines tends to focus on PCs that belong to a category that the empire detests (criminals, rebels and force users), it's more likely than unlikely that a lot of foes will be pretty much honest peacekeepers, which could even include stormtroopers to some extent. The PCs have no reason to think such foes will happily accept defeat and give up, yet I struggle to see how that would justify their callous execution. This is fodder for moral dilemmas and tests of character. If the PCs spare this kind of enemy, knowing full well that they risk it coming back to haunt them, should never be "rewarded" by dodging the negative consequences from that choice, because that'd make the choice meaningless. Doing the right thing should never be the easy choice, because then it wouldn't be an easy choice. Rather, if the PCs start executing survivors, I'd have the enemies respond in kind, and have the enemy mercilessly attempt to finish off downed PCs. Their "reward" for leaving survivors would simply be that, if it comes to that, they wouldn't be treated the same way.

I believe the decision of whether an NPC minion dies when it passes its wound threshold is up to the GM, as the rules state the minion is "defeated" when it surpasses its wound threshold.

If you want to keep it simple and random, roll a Force Die. On a Dark side result, which is more often, the NPC dies. On a Light Side result, the NPC survives.

When your wound threshold reaches zero you are still fully operational, unless you actually have a wound. After All you need to exceed your wound threshold to fall unconscious.
When your wounds reach zero, you are fully healed, because zero means zero damage.

When an NPC exceeds his wt (has more wounds than wound threshold) than the NPC falls unconscious and receive one critical wound, minions usually die when they receive a critical hit. The GM may at any time overrule this and let them live or die.

Either way, the NPC is defeated for now unless someone applies a stimpack to him, makes a medicine check, etc ... which is btw a good reason to let minions die, so you don't have to bother with applying med checks or stimpacks to them. Boring application of medine anyway. ;-)