Personally I believe there is a disconnect between the system as it is described and how the game mechanics function. Morality is explained to be a storytelling mechanic which in theory is a fantastic narrative tool. The problem lies in the method they describe to have the GM utilize the rules, namely, halt the player's turn to warn them of conflict. That does not function in a way that feels like a storytelling mechanic. It functions in a way that describes a punishment system. Because I must warn my players when they would be awarded with conflict, they begin to view gaining it as something negative, rather than as a representation of good role-playing and a character with depth that isn't just a "can do no wrong perfect Jedi luminous being".

And believe me, I have waxed poetic about the benefits of the storytelling tool that is the morality system. I have explained it as a tool for them to actively use, to tell the story they want with their force sensitive character. All it requires is that they actually use it. To take actions that accrue conflict if it fits their character's personality. To use a few dark side points in a session. To make a choice not necessarily because it's optimal or the best or the least risk but make that choice because even characters in a story can sometimes make mistakes. What I get instead is people actively avoiding making fun decisions and taking on exciting adventures because they fear taking conflict.

Even for little things, such as using a single dark side force point in a session, players seem to have to deliberate as to whether they should accept something that has a 90% chance of increasing their morality by the end of the session. God forbid if they accept 2 or 3 points of Conflict!

So yeah I'm not really that hot on leaving the system as it is. If the players already view it as a punishment system, might as well toss out the meta-gaming part where I warn them and leave the decisions up to them and their judgement, as it should be. On top of that, no longer having a cost for dark side use, which is a large factor into their decisions, will fit with the star wars theme of the dark side being quicker and more seductive. They get to do what they like when they like at no additional cost for the low, low price of conflict that we can discuss at the end of the session, to ensure we're on the same page before the morality roll is made.

My main problem is the amount of conflict I am generating with my anger of no Mystic spoilers!!!!!! ?

On 2/6/2018 at 3:44 AM, GroggyGolem said:

Personally I believe there is a disconnect between the system as it is described and how the game mechanics function. Morality is explained to be a storytelling mechanic which in theory is a fantastic narrative tool. The problem lies in the method they describe to have the GM utilize the rules, namely, halt the player's turn to warn them of conflict. That does not function in a way that feels like a storytelling mechanic. It functions in a way that describes a punishment system. Because I must warn my players when they would be awarded with conflict, they begin to view gaining it as something negative, rather than as a representation of good role-playing and a character with depth that isn't just a "can do no wrong perfect Jedi luminous being".

And believe me, I have waxed poetic about the benefits of the storytelling tool that is the morality system. I have explained it as a tool for them to actively use, to tell the story they want with their force sensitive character. All it requires is that they actually use it. To take actions that accrue conflict if it fits their character's personality. To use a few dark side points in a session. To make a choice not necessarily because it's optimal or the best or the least risk but make that choice because even characters in a story can sometimes make mistakes. What I get instead is people actively avoiding making fun decisions and taking on exciting adventures because they fear taking conflict.

Even for little things, such as using a single dark side force point in a session, players seem to have to deliberate as to whether they should accept something that has a 90% chance of increasing their morality by the end of the session. God forbid if they accept 2 or 3 points of Conflict!

So yeah I'm not really that hot on leaving the system as it is. If the players already view it as a punishment system, might as well toss out the meta-gaming part where I warn them and leave the decisions up to them and their judgement, as it should be. On top of that, no longer having a cost for dark side use, which is a large factor into their decisions, will fit with the star wars theme of the dark side being quicker and more seductive. They get to do what they like when they like at no additional cost for the low, low price of conflict that we can discuss at the end of the session, to ensure we're on the same page before the morality roll is made.

One thing to note about the requirement for a GM to warn a player of potential Conflict for a given action. This rule is nothing new. IT has always been required in every iteration of the SW RPG, dating back to the old D6 game for the GM to warn a player that their action may earn them Dark Side points/Conflict.

8 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

IT has always been required in every iteration of the SW RPG, dating back to the old D6 game for the GM to warn a player that their action may earn them Dark Side points/Conflict.

I don't think this was the case for Saga Edition. Can't speak to OCR/RCR.

1 minute ago, awayputurwpn said:

I don't think this was the case for Saga Edition. Can't speak to OCR/RCR.

It was certainly the case with the OCRB/RCRB.

Regardless if it was there or not, it's a reasonable thing GM's should do, to let them know what the ramifications of their actions will be.

It's a simple fact of gaming that a lot of people, when controlling their characters, don't really think about the ramifications of their actions, and just go for what's cool, or what gives them the biggest likely benefit. "Sure, why shouldn't I wander through the NPC's house and loot everything like I do in every MMO ever made? The loots there, they don't need it." Kind of mindset. And, a lot of gamers are just...weird people. I say this as a self proclaimed weird person, who has gamed with a table full of weird guys, for over 20 years. I am boggled all the time, at their social blinders about some common things in human interaction, and have to not-so-subtly remind them that what they are about to do, is likely going to be seen as a jerk-move, and tick some people off. And almost without fail, they will go still for a second, blink, and go "oh yeah, I didn't think of that. Ok, I won't stab that orphaned nun for her necklace, since I am technically playing a champion of light. Since you know, people might take offense at that kind of thing."

To give you a great example from D20. I was playing a Paladin of the Raven Goddess, goddess of Death. Now I played him as a guy who actually cherished life, because the longer, and fuller your life was, the greater spiritual weight your soul had in the afterlife. And since the Raven Queen hated the undead and those who summoned them, it was actually REALLY easy to play a Death Paladin, as a heroic good guy. It took like zero effort. Don't murder people, doing so robs them of their life, and robs the Raven Queen of a rich soul in her care. Treat the dead with respect, and let them rest, for their lives are now over. Summon them as undead and I will smash your face in with my shield and cut you into gibblets with my sword.

But my party, had a guy....sigh...this guy, we've all known him, and probably been him at some point. He made a rogue, with no past. He had no personal ties, was from another country so he didn't have to have a background, and basically bypassed actually fleshing out a 3 dimensional character, because he just wanted to make a sneaky murder thief, and screw all that stuff like...depth of character...motivation, etc.

We were traveling through a crypt, and as soon as the GM said "You see rows of sarcophagi along the walls of the chamber" he chimes up with "I start breaking them open and looking for loot!" And he seemed genuinely confused why my PC was angry with him, for grave robbing. Even after I explained "you know, since my character is a follower of the god of DEATH...maybe you don't mess with the dead?" He still just didn't get it, and seemed offended that I dared to stop his greedy hoarding, because it conflicted with the STORY.

That's the kind of player, that needs the reminder of "Maybe you shouldn't set that hospital on fire, unless you just want to be a badguy at this point." Because I promise, some of them just do NOT actually process that kind of thing.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

One thing to note about the requirement for a GM to warn a player of potential Conflict for a given action. This rule is nothing new. IT has always been required in every iteration of the SW RPG, dating back to the old D6 game for the GM to warn a player that their action may earn them Dark Side points/Conflict.

Well first off, I don't much care for the older star wars systems and this discussion is about the current iteration of the Star Wars RPG. If we were talking about the older systems, I'd bring out the fact that their way of handling light side/dark side was a heavy rule that if I recall, could make your character become an NPC, making it extremely dangerous if you want to keep your character.

In contrast, the effects of being dark side in this system is a few changes to how you use the Force and the Destiny Pool. I argue that the Conflict warning itself is meta-gaming and altering the player's choice through information gained outside of the narrative. The Morality mechanic is a narrative mechanic. That means that by affecting my player's decisions with the warning I have interfered with the narrative, only because the game says I should, which can drastically change the way the story unfolds. I don't like interfering with player choice in a narrative game system. It should be their choice, they should be intelligent enough to read the Morality chart I provide that explains how they can be awarded Conflict points and know that if they take one of those actions or use the Dark Side of the Force, that they will be awarded with Conflict points. At the end of a session, for transparency, I will speak with them about the Conflict they earned with specific actions (if they wish to know) but I will not warn them as they take said actions.

Regardless, my point stands. The reason why I brought them up is because of the fact that this rule is nothing new . It's not unique to this system. And, FYI, it has always been a "Meta-gaming" mechanic, but that doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing. It essentially represents your conscience warning you that you're about to do something bad. You then have the choice of either changing your mind or following through.

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Regardless, my point stands. The reason why I brought them up is because of the fact that this rule is nothing new . It's not unique to this system. And, FYI, it has always been a "Meta-gaming" mechanic, but that doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing. It essentially represents your conscience warning you that you're about to do something bad. You then have the choice of either changing your mind or following through.

So I'm roleplaying their conscience? Yeah, that's a big pet peeve of mine as a Player/GM. Their character is theirs, I have no say over how their character feels or thinks. The only thing that can really influence that is the Fear mechanic and even then, it's the dice that are telling them if they are afraid or not. As my games are houseruled quite a bit, changing a rule that makes no sense or doesn't fit the system overall or doesn't fit the game's narrative emphasis is no new situation to me. I'll change what I want and run my table how I like, obviously with player buy-in (because changing things without getting buy-in is a recipe for disaster), which I have already gotten from every player in both groups I run.

Just now, GroggyGolem said:

So I'm roleplaying their conscience? Yeah, that's a big pet peeve of mine as a Player/GM. Their character is theirs, I have no say over how their character feels or thinks. The only thing that can really influence that is the Fear mechanic and even then, it's the dice that are telling them if they are afraid or not. As my games are houseruled quite a bit, changing a rule that makes no sense or doesn't fit the system overall or doesn't fit the game's narrative emphasis is no new situation to me. I'll change what I want and run my table how I like, obviously with player buy-in (because changing things without getting buy-in is a recipe for disaster), which I have already gotten from every player in both groups I run.

Their Conscience, the Force, whatever you want to call it. The point of the mechanic is to allow the players to make sure they know the potential consequences of their intended actions, which is vital to a Force user, since, as a rule, those consequences typically have much greater ramifications.

1 hour ago, GroggyGolem said:

So I'm roleplaying their conscience? Yeah, that's a big pet peeve of mine as a Player/GM. Their character is theirs, I have no say over how their character feels or thinks.

Why can't a Force users' conscience be more mystical or multifaceted than "how I feel"? Conscience has as much to do with knowledge as it does feelings and emotions; possibly moreso. You aren't taking a player's agency away by telling him that he knows a thing to be wrong, or a morally gray area. "You know this is a potential source of conflict for you" is only adding to the story, not taking away any freedoms or decisions from the players characters.

I think warnings that don't take place within the narrative are meta-gaming. My players bought into the houserule I setup that they don't get a warning message and must use common sense and the ability to read & understand a sheet of paper. You disagree with very thin arguments, disregarding my players have full knowledge what will earn them Conflict. I think I should stop responding. I feel like this conversation is cyclical and will only end up frustrating everyone involved, especially myself.

@GroggyGolem you replying to me or someone else?

I guess I could have made that clearer. I was replying to both you @awayputurwpn and @Tramp Graphics , as you were the ones responding to my posts.

Okay. I'm not sure where my arguments were very thin...I was just disagreeing that feeding a player a bit of info about what their chartacter knows to be true is taking away player agency.

But if you don't want to discuss this, why did you post about it in the first place? Would you prefer that no one replied to your post? No exchange of ideas?

Your arguments were thin regarding telling the player how their character's conscience reacts to things. Sure maybe the force warns them a couple times in the narrative for big moments but the force doesn't cry out every time someone steals an apple and I shouldn't have to either. The rule that I have to warn players alters the way they view conflict, because warnings mean danger to people, so they avoid conflict and treat it as punishment, putting me in the situation I am currently, with players that avoid conflict so hard that they miss opportunities and are afraid of taking chances.

I haven't gotten an exchange of ideas, I've gotten people telling me why I shouldn't houserule and how I can use the existing rules, which unfortunately just doesn't work when my players, despite all encouragement and explanations, treat conflict as a form of punishment. You can read the exact same message in about 2 other posts on this page. That's the reason I'm done with this conversation, because it keeps cycling.

I would love to discuss the houserule and hear ideas about it but I have no intention of playing with vanilla morality anymore for all the reasons I've already said more than once.

@GroggyGolem , I find it very bizarre that you talk about metagaming like it's the worst thing in the world.

RPGs are a meta game.

Everyone is constantly metagming at any table ever not only just by virtue of knowing about how the mechanics work (and basing incharacter choices off of that), but u nless you play with a bunch of juvenile powerg amers, chances are that indeed people are constantly metagming to improve the storytelling and play experience. Indeed many systems these days incorporate metagaming into their mechanics and narrative with that explicit purpose (improving the storytelling experience).

Metagaming can and does when integrated properly with the mechanics improve RPGs.

FFG Star Wars is exactly one of those games (along with Burning Wheel, ALL of the Powered by the Pocalypses, Blades in the Dark, Fate, Cortex, the list goes on and on). That meta-mechanic functions more or less as "the Cosmic Gorce"/Will of the Force does in the canon media.

23 minutes ago, emsquared said:

RPGs are a meta game.

Very much the truth, from the bygone days of white box D&D to today's RPGs.

There's always been some degree of metagaming in Star Wars where the dark side is concerned. The D6 and d20 versions each had a "dark side score" that players were fully aware of, with a threshold that the players were all very much aware of. And some players used to that knowledge to go right up to the line without crossing over; there was a Saga Edition live-play podcast years ago on the d20 Radio Network where the guy playing a "Jedi" (and I use that term very loosely) pretty much abused the **** out of the dark side mechanic to be a dark sider in all but name, keeping his dark side point total just below the threshold the character would go dark and become an NPC. Others (myself included) have used their character's dark side score as a means to RP changes in personality and temperament due to how close they are to the edge as well as the temptation of power. Both are instances of pure metagaming on the part of the players, though one is far less heinous than the other.

In less drastic instances, you've got PCs measuring/tracking how much health they have left in a fight, what resources (spells, bullets, class powers) they have available to use, and using that knowledge to figure out what their character does next in addition to whatever personality traits they've devised for the character. And even those character traits are a form of meta-gaming, in that the player is weighing the context of the current scene against what's been established for their character, and deciding what's the most appropriate course of action.

Where health and bullets and spells are concerned, those are defined, integral rules of the game. Where Morality is concerned, it has minimal effect on the mechanics of the game and everything to do with the narrative of the game. I believe warning systems are stupid in RPGs because they train the players to view the message as "you will be punished if this behavior continues" and they tend to resent said system. I'm sure your mileage varies in your groups but in a total of 7 groups and 30+ players, Conflict is viewed as the ultimate evil that one must avoid 99% of the time. Nobody engages the mechanic or uses it to tell cool stories. They look at it as punishment so they actively avoid any decisions that would result in Conflict other than the occasional dark side point to activate powers. If we take the Morality mechanic as narrative primarily, then we must actually apply it in narrative. Stopping the game to say out of character "you will earn bad guy points" interrupts the story and reinforces the idea of it being punishment as it is a consequence of taking said actions. Also, it breaks the narrative. There are only a moment or two, maybe, that the Force tells someone don't do this in Star Wars and both instances were with the Chosen One. Beyond those two moments, the characters in the story have to make decisions on their own without George Lucas stopping the film to say "Hey Luke, Force Choking those gamorrean guards will earn you some Conflict."

I'm all for the rest of the Morality system as it is but the warning part of it doesn't sit right with me and therefore I've removed it. I'm guessing the majority of you feel the opposite as every response to my posts has been trying to reason why the system should be used as it is.

Rather than that, could we discuss the details of the houserule regarding where it can be improved or altered? I'd prefer that over everyone just telling me "use the system as it is written because xyz".

6 hours ago, GroggyGolem said:

I haven't gotten an exchange of ideas, I've gotten people telling me why I shouldn't houserule...

I don't think I've been telling you you shouldn't houserule...I took issue with an assumption you were making and tried to discuss it with a question that you never answered. There's a difference between challenging an assumption and telling you flat-out to do things a different way.

I can appreciate you being done with the discussion, but yet you keep posting. If you do want to exchange ideas about it, I tried to start a discussion on it a number of posts up and I'll leave it to you whether you'd like to pursue that line of thought and see if we can think up any way to improve things on your end (but if not I understand, no harm done).

1 hour ago, GroggyGolem said:

I'm all for the rest of the Morality system as it is but the warning part of it doesn't sit right with me and therefore I've removed it. I'm guessing the majority of you feel the opposite as every response to my posts has been trying to reason why the system should be used as it is.

I can't fault you there as I've done the exact same, and have informed my players of it up front before the first session even properly begins. My current gaming groups comprise rational adults, so it's not too much for me to ask them to consider their character's actions and possible consequences without my prodding.

However, my players do still metagame to the extent that they'll wonder if a course of action is worth the chance of conflict or not. But when it comes to something that has a consequence to players, no matter how minor, you're never really going to fully escape the metagaming aspect.

2 hours ago, GroggyGolem said:

Rather than that, could we discuss the details of the houserule regarding where it can be improved or altered? I'd prefer that over everyone just telling me "use the system as it is written because xyz".

The reason I will always try to get ppl to consider their implementation of "vanilla" Morality, when their instinct is to change this core mechanic (which while it may not impact the scene-to-scene mechanics much, it is tied into a HUGE narrative theme of the IP and is something any player will expect of a Force-based game), is because the Community benefits MASSIVELY from a common frame of reference, and a common understanding of the vanilla game, because that common understanding is what facilitates easy play between different tables.

Its why we have rules for RPGs. A common frame of reference for all.

And if you're not warning ppl about Conflict as per RAW, you are not using the Morality system "correctly" and so you can't expect it to function correctly.

Your stance on metagaming doesn't matter - that's how this system works. That's how this mechanic in this game works. It works using metagaming. And it does work.

It does also takes a little brain space in play, and honestly it seems like that's what is truly at the center of most people's problems when you come down to it. They don't (want to?) do the work. And that's fine, but I don't see the point in replacing one kind of work with another. If you don't want to use Morality RAW, use it 100% narratively.

No new/different bookkeeping.

No new/different terminology for the same thing.

No necessary rebalancing of game mechanics tied to it all.

Just: "Hey guys, if you do Darkside stuff, you're gonna become Darkside." That's also easy for anyone to understand going into any table anywhere.

Truly that's all the RAW mechanic comes down to. They just attached a very granular bookkeeping mechanic to it. So take that bookkeeping out and just do the narrative part.

But if you take metagming out of games that have metagaming intertwined with its mechanics, you break that game. And it sounds like you've broken the RAW Morality game, and now are trying to assert that it doesn't work. You broke it. Of course it doesn't work.

Amen @emsquared

4 hours ago, emsquared said:

The reason I will always try to get ppl to consider their implementation of "vanilla" Morality, when their instinct is to change this core mechanic (which while it may not impact the scene-to-scene mechanics much, it is tied into a HUGE narrative theme of the IP and is something any player will expect of a Force-based game), is because the Community benefits MASSIVELY from a common frame of reference, and a common understanding of the vanilla game, because that common understanding is what facilitates easy play between different tables.

The issue I have with this is that even the RAW itself leaves much up to interpretation, and while it would be nice to have a common frame of reference, the truth is that people still debate about stuff even within the confines of RAW. You mention that it's simple to say "If you do Darkside stuff, you go Darkside," but people can't even agree on what that is, especially when Star Wars canon leaves much of it up to interpretation. So if not everyone likes the rule, and nobody can agree on anything even while using the rule, then what good is the rule?

4 hours ago, awayputurwpn said:

If you do want to exchange ideas about it, I tried to start a discussion on it a number of posts up and I'll leave it to you whether you'd like to pursue that line of thought and see if we can think up any way to improve things on your end (but if not I understand, no harm done).

You're right on that, I apologize. Ok here goes

21 hours ago, awayputurwpn said:

Why can't a Force users' conscience be more mystical or multifaceted than "how I feel"? Conscience has as much to do with knowledge as it does feelings and emotions; possibly moreso. You aren't taking a player's agency away by telling him that he knows a thing to be wrong, or a morally gray area. "You know this is a potential source of conflict for you" is only adding to the story, not taking away any freedoms or decisions from the players characters.

It certainly can be more mystical and multifaceted and I tend to represent the mystical and multifaceted with the various sensory perceptions one has as a Force Sensitive as well as visions of both the literal and the metaphorical. I tend to shy away from outright telling players what their character thinks or feels emotionally and instead let them narrate their state of mind. Typically this is emphasized on sessions in which the Force Sensitives have their Obligation (as I always end up running mixed parties of EotE and F&D characters, everyone has Obligation). It is then that I can really focus on their character and whatever they have put together as their Obligation (usually involves something that plays well with their Force Sensitivity).

It's not as much about them knowing a thing that is taking away their agency, because they have full knowledge what gives Conflict, I go over the Morality chart with them and provide handout copies for personal use. It's about the act of warning them that trains their mind to think that Conflict is a punishment and prevents them from engaging it beyond a couple points here and there for Force Power use. I have worked tirelessly to retrain them to think that Conflict is empowering them to tell fun adventurous stories about Force Users but it doesn't get through. My solution was to just drop the pretense of the rules that it is "empowering the players" and remove the warning. This works well with players that, IME already treat it as a punishment and don't engage it. So instead of interfering with every decision they make, further exacerbating the problem of them not engaging the Morality rules in any meaningful way because they can continue to avoid Conflict by taking back a decision that they had already made, I track their Conflict in secret, allowing the system to be used, just in a way that doesn't interfere with their roleplaying and does minimal changes to the existing system.