I like that they put in all of the heavy hardware so that the Star Wars can be faithfully represented in the system, especially for Age of Rebellion Games.

I notice though, that military-use equipment is often the logical acquisition of the characters because of the mechanical advantage such equipment affords. In Edge of the Empire I often want to create an old west vibe, or maybe a noir vibe. In these games a problem I often see is that characters start getting more and more militaristic as the game progresses. They might have been happy with a hold-out blaster in their bodice at game start, but by session 6 they are in laminate armor with a light repeater. I'm not averse to a situational escalation in use of force like jumping on the cannon on the sail barge, or using that crate of detonite to blow up the bridge. I'm talking about the constant climb upward in permanent military gear acquisition.

In EotE games not on war-torn planets, I have begun to really meter the availability of some of the heavier weapons on the equipment list, and to flag certain weapons as having a military design and use for the purpose of how NPCs react to seeing them. Even in Old West Frontier Town type situations, the weapons are normally supposed to be for survival. Maybe survival against the other townsfolk lol, but that means that heavy firepower is going to cause nervous hands to want to get the jump on a guy with a heavy blaster rifle rather than risk a straight fight. Not to mention what the authorities will do.

The more you escalate the weaponry (and Defense) the more the compensation on the adversary side, and the higher the power scale. Since military weapons usually represent the upper scale of destructive potential, they are usually the destination for players looking to gain a mechanical advantage. The problem is that most GM's match encounters to their PCs, so they will adjust accordingly, so the "powering up" of the PCs simply triggers an arms race with the GM lest the players now remove all threat from combat. I have done that in the past, simply allowed the players to equip their way out of fun, and I did it deliberately too because I was mostly invested in the RP parts of the game instead of combat, but that's not a cooperative solution.

PC: I'm much safer because I have a Missile Tube!

GM: Yeah, not so much. (Gets out harder bad guy cards)

The casualty of this is that soon the game has a cast of characters who look like power rangers that just came out of a gun show in Pakistan.

Some groups correct this on their own, and will keep to the concept of the characters (Soldier-type characters exempted), but other players are more interested in the mechanical aspects of play, and to them a bonus is a bonus. If this situation is a concern for you, how do you handle it in your game?

10 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

but that means that heavy firepower is going to cause nervous hands to want to get the jump on a guy with a heavy blaster rifle rather than risk a straight fight. Not to mention what the authorities will do.

I focus more on this.

I want my games to be player-driven—it means less work for me trying to force my own vision on the game, and it better ensures that the players enjoy the game. "Yes, and" is a good approach.

But I also put reasonable governances in place. There are many social environments, even in the "frontier," where a large or military-grade weapon would be unwelcome, and military-grade armor would make you stick out like a sore thumb. If players insist on being so equipped, then they are choosing to make life harder for themselves in that aspect. So I don't fight it; I take it and run with it!

I always make it clear to my players: having a blaster at your side makes you look like you're ready for trouble; wearing laminate armor or carrying a rifle around makes you look like you're looking for trouble (and also makes you far easier to identify). The Mandalorian in my group once went out into Theed to buy coffee and got stalked by local police every step of the way. Everywhere he goes, people keep an eye on him and are on the defensive around him. I don't go out of my way to make things difficult just to make things difficult, but when the situations dictates that laminate armor and a carbine are inappropriate accessories, I don't hold back either.

6 minutes ago, Vorzakk said:

I always make it clear to my players: having a blaster at your side makes you look like you're ready for trouble; wearing laminate armor or carrying a rifle around makes you look like you're looking for trouble (and also makes you far easier to identify). The Mandalorian in my group once went out into Theed to buy coffee and got stalked by local police every step of the way. Everywhere he goes, people keep an eye on him and are on the defensive around him. I don't go out of my way to make things difficult just to make things difficult, but when the situations dictates that laminate armor and a carbine are inappropriate accessories, I don't hold back either.

Yes and I think this also is in line with Awayputurwpn's emergent style because it's about letting the players experience the consequences of their choices. I am not in favor of ordering these weapons and armor to not be used, my ultimate goal would be for the players to do that for me. I think that the game doesn't have much in the way of incentives to not use increasingly heavy and military grade equipment, so it's kind of up to the players and the GM.

I can understand the sentiment but its not exclusive to Star Wars. Most players have two options, do what right/logical or do the cool thing...

It is the same in the Star Wars game, where you can plan all your actions, think out a fool proof plan, but then the villain will do something "idiotic", but any story villain at the cinema will do.

The same applies for characters and their use of tactics or specialty gear. You can come prepared, geared to the teeth, or you can venture with your rag tag team to survive off the jungle and use improvised or damaged equipment, with not much ammo for everyone. Its two different stories.

1 minute ago, Archlyte said:

I think that the game doesn't have much in the way of incentives to not use increasingly heavy and military grade equipment, so it's kind of up to the players and the GM.

The incentive is narrative, as military hardware in any kind of combat situation will almost always be stronger than civilian versions. This applies in Star Wars as much as is does in real life.

Consider the gun laws of the United States: They are some of the most permissive in the Western World. Yet you still can't go walking down the street in full body armor carrying an M-60 without getting arrested. Now take that same example to a more lawless part of the world, where the law is actually which ever strongman is in power. They will take an extremely negative view of anyone who has the firepower to contest their control and will react appropriately. The paranoid ones will probably just assault the PCs right away, the more clever ones might actually try negotiation first. The end result is the same: The PCs are disarmed or at least heavily restricted in one way or another.

15 minutes ago, RusakRakesh said:

I can understand the sentiment but its not exclusive to Star Wars. Most players have two options, do what right/logical or do the cool thing...

It is the same in the Star Wars game, where you can plan all your actions, think out a fool proof plan, but then the villain will do something "idiotic", but any story villain at the cinema will do.

The same applies for characters and their use of tactics or specialty gear. You can come prepared, geared to the teeth, or you can venture with your rag tag team to survive off the jungle and use improvised or damaged equipment, with not much ammo for everyone. Its two different stories.

I think you are right that it isn't just something from this game/setting, but I feel like this setting has the ability to contain stories that aren't just about characters in war (despite the name lol). I think maybe though that you have a bit of false dichotomy going though as far as their choices because why is the logical thing not cool? I don't know why playing a group that uses less militaristic weapons is automatically not a cool thing to do. It is the mechanically cool thing to do to gear up to the teeth, but that isn't connected to the actual cool factor of the story unless it's every player at the table's desire to always play a soldier character and to go for maximum firepower.

I think you touched on another element here and that would be the risk-averse player or group. They try to avoid complication and risk at all costs, and they see the gear treadmill as their solution. If they have soak of 12 and weapons that Auto-Crit they must be invulnerable, which is fun right? Having some trust in the GM that the game is not just an exercise in sadism on his part is a necessary agreement. Adventure seems to me to be a word with Adversity in its root.

I would very much like to have the different stories. I love playing the troops in contact or the fighter pilot game. I just think that every game doesn't need to go there and the habit of being a Build-Monkey type player seems hard to break.

Thank you for your response, I think you have great points and I appreciate your frank approach.

23 minutes ago, Magnus Arcanus said:

The incentive is narrative, as military hardware in any kind of combat situation will almost always be stronger than civilian versions. This applies in Star Wars as much as is does in real life.

Consider the gun laws of the United States: They are some of the most permissive in the Western World. Yet you still can't go walking down the street in full body armor carrying an M-60 without getting arrested. Now take that same example to a more lawless part of the world, where the law is actually which ever strongman is in power. They will take an extremely negative view of anyone who has the firepower to contest their control and will react appropriately. The paranoid ones will probably just assault the PCs right away, the more clever ones might actually try negotiation first. The end result is the same: The PCs are disarmed or at least heavily restricted in one way or another.

I think we are on the same line of thinking here because I was feeling that the only incentives were narrative and was hoping that the control of the creep would be player-centric rather than GM, but willing to do it if I have to. Some games give slower initiative to bigger guns, a failure check for wearing armor, or other checks and balances. I can see why they didn't do that with this game, but it means that the narrative checks and balances have to be used and respected.

Also I think about how the characters often travel from one type of world to another, and in a movie the characters would sort of get it automatically as denizens of the setting, but players will often just go into automatic mode and the armor and big guns are like Charlie Brown's T-shirt. I once had a player who would just stay on the ship if they went someplace where heavy weapons weren't allowed. That's certainly player-driven, but it was a bummer.

I agree there are other stories to tell except the war, but it eventually drains down to working around it...
Recruitment, resource procurement, research, life in the shade of war... it all basically is war, just not from a soldier's point if view. Out the top of my head I can't think of another story in this theme.

3 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

I think we are on the same line of thinking here because I was feeling that the only incentives were narrative and was hoping that the control of the creep would be player-centric rather than GM, but willing to do it if I have to. Some games give slower initiative to bigger guns, a failure check for wearing armor, or other checks and balances. I can see why they didn't do that with this game, but it means that the narrative checks and balances have to be used and respected.

I certainly respect and understand players want to "win" such that they want to be optimized. I would certainly look to do the same as a player. There is also something to be said of verisimilitude and creating a rich world to roleplay in, and that includes have the inhabitants of a given world react appropriately to PC behavior. If the PCs walk around town armed for war, they shouldn't be surprised when war finds them. They should also get the chance to recognize this fact before hand and adjust their behavior if needed.

5 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

I once had a player who would just stay on the ship if they went someplace where heavy weapons weren't allowed. That's certainly player-driven, but it was a bummer.

This just sounds like a player having a tantrum and figuratively saying "if I can't play the game I want I'll just take my ball and go home."

2 minutes ago, RusakRakesh said:

I agree there are other stories to tell except the war, but it eventually drains down to working around it...
Recruitment, resource procurement, research, life in the shade of war... it all basically is war, just not from a soldier's point if view. Out the top of my head I can't think of another story in this theme.

Well they give you the Outer Rim and even in GCW era you can have places that are largely untouched by the conflict. But to be honest I think the setting doesn't push the characters toward power armor: players wanting easy success/less risk is the thing that does that. I don't think that having that equipment is bad, and if it is part of the story, or agreed upon game theme, then it's certainly good. But the way that it's always about the bigger gun kind of bums me out. At a certain point a Light Blaster Pistol atrophies into the junk pile of weapon choices, simply because everyone had credits and now sports awesome armor and defense. Then it's like, ok well I guess everyone is going to be getting a Heavy Blaster Pistol or bigger, and the Disruptors are a given. I don't feel like this should be the case. Would be nice if the special stuff could actually remain special and have it be more like what Magnus said as far as how it makes its appearance in the world.

53 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

I think that the game doesn't have much in the way of incentives to not use increasingly heavy and military grade equipment, so it's kind of up to the players and the GM.

This. What is rewarded gets repeated. If just allow your players to continually decimate their opposition with big guns, and there's no reasonable, "the-galaxy-is-a-real-place-with-real-rules" checks and balances, then you're rewarding their behavior. Why would they stop being awesome?

19 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

I once had a player who would just stay on the ship if they went someplace where heavy weapons weren't allowed. That's certainly player-driven, but it was a bummer.

See, then that's a choice. And because he chooses to abstain from activity, when his fellow players get into a jam and he's not there to help them out, it'll be because he chose not to be. Again, consequences to PC choices. Not in a "gotcha" way, but in a dramatic & cinematic way.

23 minutes ago, Magnus Arcanus said:

I certainly respect and understand players want to "win" such that they want to be optimized. I would certainly look to do the same as a player. There is also something to be said of verisimilitude and creating a rich world to roleplay in, and that includes have the inhabitants of a given world react appropriately to PC behavior. If the PCs walk around town armed for war, they shouldn't be surprised when war finds them. They should also get the chance to recognize this fact before hand and adjust their behavior if needed.

This just sounds like a player having a tantrum and figuratively saying "if I can't play the game I want I'll just take my ball and go home."

Maybe you hit the nail on the head there Magnus. I think the need to "win" is the problem. In a game where you sit across from an all-powerful player (GM) with unlimited resources trying to win is merely a matter of the GM deciding whether or not the rules or fiat will be the deciding factor. I think that being in competition with the GM is absurd. To me the situation I often see is like this:

• Social Contract - Determines how much Rules will be used over GM Fiat
• Player uses Rules to counter threats (wants to Win)
• GM has the decision to use Rules or Fiat in depicting threats + Has the responsibility to provide tension (possibility of Losing)
• Player continually attempts to use Rules-Based gains to counter threats but GM has to maintain Tension or game becomes boring. The balance is where Player feels like he is winning fairly but faces challenge.

When this misfires you have problems. If the GM feels like he has failed to provide a challenge he will use Fiat or Rules to correct and this counters the player's use of rules to overcome threats. That creates anxiety and the player then attempts to acquire more bonuses to return to a state of confidence. The cycle begins again when the Confidence of the Player has defeated Tension.

I just don't make it available, mainly by not spending any time in-game on shopping. There are too many other plot-related things to do, and the clock is always ticking.

Early on my players wanted good weapons, because for a few players, that's what RPGs are for. So I let them pick the best non-upgraded weapon their PC wanted at the beginning and left it at that. (They've upgraded these items and made them more potent, but I expected that.) We went from 60XP to 600XP without a change...though they have occasionally gained temporary use of high-powered custom stuff. I found it was more about how powerful they felt than lusting over bigger-and-better "just because". Since their weapons reliably took down their intended targets, the drive for better gear faded. This isn't to say they always "won" or succeeded at what they intended, it's just their weapons didn't feel like the weak-link in trying to get things done. If I ramped up the opposition so they were always plinking against their targets, if their weapons became a bottleneck on their abilities, then the gear-drive returned.

On occasion I would drop some pretty stuff in their laps, something like Doom's BFG or an anti-personnel repulsor tank with base damage of 15 and autofire. My pilot/shooter looooved it! But the gear was almost always broken, or had only a few charges, and I would use Despairs or mass Threats viciously against it after it had fulfilled its plot purpose. They do still have both the tank and the BFG, not to mention a TIE Adv., but they haven't had time to fix them, so it's not an issue, because ... clock (see above).

I'm not a fan of leveraging "social penalties" too often. That's the GM derailing their own plot to keep the players in line. It takes over the session and threatens to become antagonistic roleplaying. But the players might not have been out of line in the first place if the plot and the opposition didn't lead them to want more firepower.

That said, I have made it clear to the players that walking around with a BFG will attract unwanted attention. They are players, so they did ask of course. But they didn't push it, and I haven't put them in a situation where they've said "See, we should have had that BFG all along!"

I feel like I am getting a bit off topic on this. I think that my main point was that there has to be ways to encourage players to steer the game in such a way that it's not about a gear grind. I think of weapons as tools to do a job, but like other tools, I don't walk around all day with a set of wrenches and sockets on me. There is a time and place for the tools. I think my main problem is that players worship the tools and the rules help them do it. To the point where the tools are the character like in an MMO. The character without his gear in an MMO is a useless thing.

I considered just flattening out the damage of the weapons, but I felt that in the end this was more destructive than constructive so I kept the damages as RAW.

I am taking into account what you guys are saying though, and I think that you are right that a player-driven solution is superior.

Make stories that can't be solved with weapons, and if they try they get overwhelmed and end up in prison without any gear.

2 hours ago, Vorzakk said:

I always make it clear to my players: having a blaster at your side makes you look like you're ready for trouble; wearing laminate armor or carrying a rifle around makes you look like you're looking for trouble (and also makes you far easier to identify). The Mandalorian in my group once went out into Theed to buy coffee and got stalked by local police every step of the way. Everywhere he goes, people keep an eye on him and are on the defensive around him. I don't go out of my way to make things difficult just to make things difficult, but when the situations dictates that laminate armor and a carbine are inappropriate accessories, I don't hold back either.

Agreed. One of my players carries a Huge Slug-thrower rifle and wears Full laminate painted bright Fuchsia to quote "Strike fear into the Hearts of their enemies" or whatever. Do I allow it? Sure. Does it make it super easy to have bounty hunters track them down? You bet. On numerous occasions I have NPC's point out "that sure is some distinctive armor", which they acknowledge and embrace. They also have to give up their rifle to enter private parties and the like, and when a fight inevitably breaks out they have learned to invest a few points into brawl. Their choices have consequences and they accept that.

2 hours ago, ThreeAM said:

Agreed. One of my players carries a Huge Slug-thrower rifle and wears Full laminate painted bright Fuchsia to quote "Strike fear into the Hearts of their enemies" or whatever. Do I allow it? Sure. Does it make it super easy to have bounty hunters track them down? You bet. On numerous occasions I have NPC's point out "that sure is some distinctive armor", which they acknowledge and embrace. They also have to give up their rifle to enter private parties and the like, and when a fight inevitably breaks out they have learned to invest a few points into brawl. Their choices have consequences and they accept that.

Yeah the fact that this is accepted is the big thing there in my opinion. They aren't trying to argue against the trouble they cause, but instead see it as the adventure, which is fantastic.

5 hours ago, Archlyte said:

I considered just flattening out the damage of the weapons, but I felt that in the end this was more destructive than constructive so I kept the damages as RAW.

Or you could just say there won't be any new weapons available because you're running a different kind of game. Han Solo kept the same blaster from E4 through...well, E7 it seems...and never wore armour.

I agree with the basic premise in your OP. RPGs are heavily influenced by D&D, and D&D *requires* PCs to have all kinds of upgraded equipment or they won't survive. But SW is a different scene, there's no reason you have to cater to the D&D trope.

Yeah that's a good point man. If you make it clear from the get go and then back it up in play then it shouldn't be an issue. The Han Solo example is perfect. He didn't have +5 Power Armor and a Cyber hand with a Disruptor built into it by the end of the trilogy or in TFA. The character is very cool even without item upgrades. As long as the characters are as capable as they should be for the story then it seems to me all is good.

Obvious armor attracts attention.

Heavy clothing

Armored clothing

Reinforces clothing

Second skin armor under clothing

Catch vest

The engineers overalls whatever they're called

Those kind of things don't attract attention no matter where you go (well almost)

An armored flight suit won't attract attention in a city with a space port.

The above attract attention means "make people antsy cause you problems"

A kamperdine armored tailored jacket will attract a different kind of attention but it won't make people antsy.

Padded armor attracts attention raises eyebrows, some people might avoid you but it doesn't start fights

Anything obviously heavier than padded armor definitely attracts attention in a negative way... if you've got a fearsome rep (e.g. Boba Fett) people won't hassle you but they will avoid you. Uber crime loads who are too Uber to care (e.g. black sun, Jabba the Hutt) if you're wearing armor won't hassle you because they just don't fear you, they perceive you to be an insect they can proverbially squash

What kind of weapons are socially acceptable to bring where vary by location. But the absolute upper limit is a heavy blaster rifle and that happens when you're dealing with the criminal underworld elite and their goons are packing at least that.

A regular blaster rifle is OK on the streets of frontier towns, that may raise eyebrows but they won't hassle you.

A carbine is about the most you can bring most places

You can bring a blaster pistol/heavy blaster pistol *almost* any where legally unless they haver Uber strict weapons laws, but in some places wearing it openly will attract attention, people avoid you or refuse you service

But NOBODY let's you walk up to them if you're holding a thermal detonator or other explosive device (and most people can't distinguish a stun grenade from a frag grenade)

Vibroweapon...

A vibró knife is so easy to conceal that unless you get caught by a weapons detector you can bring it anywhere

A vibró sword/vibró katana, it should really attract attention like a blaster rifle but if a player is carrying one it's usually pretty key to their concept so I tend to treat it like a blaster carbine because I want the player to have a good time at my table.

A vibró ax is normally treated like a heavy blaster rifle in terms of reaction by others... unless the wielder is a gamorean because I love me some star wars stereotypes.

Similarly bowcasters are treated like heavy blaster rifles unless wielded by a wookiee.

That doesn't cover every item in every book but it sure covers a lot, point is people in the universe react to PCs having "unreasonable" load outs and the narrative boom gets lowered.

12 hours ago, Archlyte said:

If this situation is a concern for you, how do you handle it in your game?

There's a TL;DR at the bottom for folks who enjoy less reading.

So there's players that are there for the adventure and the story and there are players that are there to advance their character through xp and items. These two types of players aren't mutually exclusive and are not the only spectrum of players, just the ones I will be focusing on.

Every player to some extent wants to advance their characters, which is fine. It's expected in RPG's, really. A lot of my players have been mostly content with things as they are and enjoyed advancements in equipment as they happened along the way. They are there to have fun and enjoy the story we build together primarily.

There are also players that obsess over their upgrades or continually talk about the equipment they are looking forward to acquiring. This is not a bad thing in itself, however this type of thinking can be contagious. When the entire group begins to focus more on their upgrades and their equipment, this could be an indication they are more focused on combat encounters than anything else.

I found out at 1,000+ xp, a lot of the lethality of a player group comes from high-end, heavily modified equipment. Skill ranks and Characteristic ranks play a factor into how successful their attacks are but there's still a big difference between a blaster pistol and a disruptor pistol. A lot of the equipment creep can (and probably should) be mitigated by the way you run your game. I'll go through a few things I picked up with an especially murderhobo-y group of mine that I ran for 2 years.

How many credits do the players acquire from jobs? If they are acquiring credits into the thousands, expect them to begin spending them on expensive equipment. Sure you don't want to throw change at your players all the time but it probably isn't the best idea for every adventure to end with the players each getting 1,000+ credits. Some adventures shouldn't be about the money or the rewards. I tend to make Obligation sessions entirely focused on the character and their situation and not at all about earning credits. In fact, I generally don't award credits at all. The players have to find, accept and complete jobs to earn their pay. Thieving is an option but should obviously have its own difficulties!

Do you use the crafting system? This is a huge factor into the level of equipment a group can acquire. If there is a character with high intellect/mechanics and you use the crafting system, there should be some limits to how much they can craft. All crafting checks take an amount of time in-game, so ensure that there isn't months of time that passes in-between sessions. I'd put it at a week of in-game time passing between sessions, at the most. On top of that, look out for the schematics that players can create for their crafting checks. A highly skilled character with enough time and money could craft until they have several schematics, allowing them to make some truly powerful equipment that they can either use or sell to continue to profit. I would also cap schematics so that a player couldn't mass produce and sell them. I'd cap the amount of schematics to the amount required to bring the crafting check to Simple. You might even want to take it further and cap Schematics at 1 per item template.

Do you require the players pay for smaller, narrative things? Consumables, fuel, ship maintenance, hotel stay, docking fees, should be part of the game. They may not be much on their own but a hundred credits here and there can add up quickly, especially if you aren't always handing out thousands of credits.

Do you allow characters to waltz into every community with missile tubes and power armor? This one has been discussed already, so mainly I'll just say that communities vary in their laws and regulations. Typically military-grade materiel is meant only for the military and carrying around such items is a quick way to get the authorities involved. Sure, some places are the wild west and you can walk around with a cannon strapped to your leg. I generally handle it that the closer you head to the Core Worlds, the more restricted armor and weaponry is going to be. The Outer Rim and beyond can be the wild west but even then, some planets will be made up of pacifists or societies that have strict penalties for crime.

The TL;DR

How I handled it previously was the wrong way to go. Players focused heavily on equipment upgrades, too many credits were given out, too much in-game time took place between sessions allowing for characters to craft whatever they wanted and have it immediately for the next session, most societies avoided the characters when they strolled into town, though they always managed to murder someone. I encouraged use of the crafting system and the group had a very combat-focused mentality since a key member drifted into murderhobo territory long before the campaign ended and the rest of them followed suit.

How I handle it now is that there's less in-game time between sessions, there's less credits acquired, depending on where they go in the galaxy the players will be restricted more heavily and I try not to encourage use of the crafting rules. A newly formed group has a veteran of the system that wants to use the crafting rules and is generally upgrade obsessed and I am trying to temper that mindset so they can focus more on the narrative and not influence the rest of the group to be about imaginary material possessions. The plotline of the adventures tend to be more time-sensitive as well, which puts priority on accomplishing tasks and reduces the priority of getting swag.

18 hours ago, Magnus Arcanus said:

The end result is the same: The PCs are disarmed or at least heavily restricted in one way or another.

That is where you are deeply mistaken of the setting and character progression.
The last thing the local warlord wants is the piss of those mercs from outside and give them reasons to destroy his influence.

Once your group went this way all in, becoming a military mercenary unit with all the military grade hardware and training … you will not be able to walk in unnoticed, but you certainly will usually not hear much complaining about it on planets which lack governmental structures.

Now what should be totally possible is that the group is playing their social interactions wrong, leaving the wrong impression and find themselves right in the middle of a war, because the locals get the impression that the PCs are coming for them, but even that scenario does not mean disarmed or heavy restricted.

Now on civilized planets with proper law enforcement … you might not be able to walk around with restricted military grade gear, on some planets they might not even leave your unrestricted gear, but in general is the setting very lax with gun control laws, etc Elias went in much detail about where and when equipment might draw attention.

But the thing no GM should forget is that a group with makes themselves into mercenaries with ueber military equipment are just that: Military for hire. And the group should be dealt in that way and NPCs should react in that way to them. If the group want to play that way, give them the missions fitting to their chosen theme. Including all the dirty stuff, including all the death, suffering, etc that comes with that. Maybe after some time their characters get sick of it and want to settle down on some colonie planet instead.

Get a wife, get some land, settle down afterwards. Trouble will find them anyway ;-)

Yeah but I don't know about you but I don't feel that progression has to equal Mercenaries. I think you can play a campaign where the characters don't end up driving tanks or being tanks. The weapon lists and equipment in the game has a progression of civilian to military with the highest damage stuff being on the military end. If you take away the military weapons then you still have capable characters who can do amazing things, which would seem to me to be a recipe for just as much fun as the Fire Team PC Group.

I guess the main point for me of this thread is that I don't think you have to have militaristic (min/maxed) weapons and armor to have a great campaign.

I think the push to increase capabilities often gets divorced from the identity of the characters, the locale they are in, and the need they have for damage. I think the players may not know that their light blaster pistol will be fine, but if they are not focused on the mechanics they will begin to need to upgrade so that they can delete bad guys faster. This also gets rid of one of the elements of combats that I enjoy: using the environment or great ideas to win. It doesn't take anything but to say "I attack" to win with a modded-out Disruptor Rifle.