So one of my players approached me with a new character idea request. Wookiee, Force Sensitive (Move Power), lightsaber wielding abolitionist. Bent on freeing all Wookiees by any means. Inaction is complacency, and dealt with severely. You're part of the solution, or you're part of the problem.

I don't even know what to do with this...

The crew is 1000+ xp, a year after Yavin, getting ready to run through Arda 1. We have a wookiee tech, a wookiee melee, human hired gun, twilek pilot, human FS noble, and her near human FS paladin-Ish bodyguard.

What kind of game do you run? Sandbox or story arc? This doesn't sound like a character that can play well with others if they aren't helping free Wookiees 24/7. I'd ask the player, "how do you see your character fitting in with the others and the kinds of things the other players want to do?"

You could promise a future multi-session arc devoted to freeing *some* Wookiees, provided they cooperate when the story isn't about that sole topic.

51 minutes ago, bsmith23 said:

So one of my players approached me with a new character idea request. Wookiee, Force Sensitive (Move Power), lightsaber wielding abolitionist. Bent on freeing all Wookiees by any means. Inaction is complacency, and dealt with severely. You're part of the solution, or you're part of the problem.

In this case, I'd feel comfortable vetoing it. The character sounds too extreme to work for my golden rule of character creation, which is "everyone has to be willing and able to work together." The Wookiee as described sounds like he'd cause problems with the group.

I'd recommend the player either come up with a new concept or rework the concept to be less extreme.

I agree with @CaptainRaspberry , this character would be on a one way ticket to the Dark Side. He’s too much of an extremist.

At 1000+ XP I say let the player play that character. You guys are at the far end of the spectrum and probably need a challenge. Also, this sort of character is really only a problem if Death doesn't have a seat at your table. Sooner or later Wook Quixote there is gonna tilt at one AT-ST too many and should join his ancestors (or the Force I mean).

As @Tramp Graphics noted, the PC is destined towards the dark side. It's hard to know without knowing your group or the players, but maybe that's this player's intent. Each time the team *doesn't* divert the mission and save Wookiees, he's going to generate Conflict depending on how he handles it. It's one thing if his PC is screaming at the rest of party "you guys are all cowards!" This is still Conflict-worthy imho, but might make for good roleplay if the others step in to calm him down. It's another level if his PC starts threatening the other members of the party or even attacking them to get what he wants. That would be lots of Conflict, but that's also where I'd draw the line between "playable" and "non-playable", so Conflict there is moot.

If the party is good with it, and in the know, and the player is mature enough to know the boundaries, it could still be an interesting way to explore the dark side.

If the wookiee doesn't fit, you must acquit.

Ah, the "Chewbacca Defense".

7 minutes ago, bsmith23 said:

Ah, the "Chewbacca Defense".

Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!

12 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!

Unless he wants to be King of All Endor and wear a shiny hat.

Warn him if he goes too far overboard that character becomes an NPC and the group's nemesis!

Are you sure he isn't thinking this is a one shot?

On 8/5/2018 at 8:17 PM, bsmith23 said:

... Bent on freeing all Wookiees by any means. Inaction is complacency, and dealt with severely. You're part of the solution, or you're part of the problem.

This statement alone is a disqualifier. It is activist code-speak for, "Believe in my cause (now!) or you are just as guilty." No thanks. Looks like he only wants to pursue his cause and everyone else is wrong. I don't see how that works for a group. How's he going to deal with the group's inaction to free Wookiees when they are going through Arda1?

On 8/6/2018 at 2:17 AM, bsmith23 said:

So one of my players approached me with a new character idea request. Wookiee, Force Sensitive (Move Power), lightsaber wielding abolitionist. Bent on freeing all Wookiees by any means. Inaction is complacency, and dealt with severely. You're part of the solution, or you're part of the problem.

I don't even know what to do with this...

I think it is a great character concept. I would love to see somebody play that...

...in a solo campaign (1 GM, 1 player) that is possibly hellbent on becoming a Dark Side game.

Like so many others have said, this can be handled maturely, and the character isn't as extreme as it is made out to be. Or it has the potential to go downhill fast. Especially if the player is overbearing enough. A cautionary tale if you please. This one D&D group I went to for a (very short) time had a DM who couldn't handle this overbearing player there. I saw quite soon, that the player was running the game, and not the DM. The player dictated where the party went, or else his Paladin character would deem those not following him heretics and they would be dealt with accordingly. The player also had control over this group, as he was the only one with a decent play room available, a spacious basement with a large table and plenty seats, a fridge, a microwave oven, etc. None in real life dared defy him (except for me, of course, as I was actually invited by the DM to asses the situation and provide some advice, not necessarily to shake things up as I turned out to do in the end). My character didn't do as demanded (essentially, being a female character, she had to wash clothes, clean the mess kits, and to " bend over and take one for the team "...!!!), was accused of heresy, and got into a trial where she had a local cleric cast Zone of Truth. She wasn't lying, so the accusation must have been false and the demands were way past Paladin-virtuous. The paladin lost his status, and paladinhood to boot. in anger, his character attacked mine, and without his Paladin powers my character easily defeated his, mercifully keeping him alive, no less. For the first time ever, the DM felt like being a DM, instead of just some random bloke telling the overbearing player's personal fantasy story. While the DM would have wanted to see me return the next week, I was called by that very angry player and permanently disinvited for "not fitting in with the group profile". Next thing I know, the DM is over at my place for a couple of games, and two of three other players quit the game alltogether as well.

You want to run the Arda adventure? What's to stop the player from the abolitionist Wookiee to take over the ship at threat of a lightsaber, and steer away from Arda completely, thus running the game for you? If you are a stronger GM than the player is (mentally, group control here) you might stop the game from derailing. But one way or another, one side is bound to lose their fun, if this situation isn't handled with care. Not saying that it couldn't be fun, but there is a big potential for a negative play experience here.

18 hours ago, Xcapobl said:

I think it is a great character concept. I would love to see somebody play that...

...in a solo campaign (1 GM, 1 player) that is possibly hellbent on becoming a Dark Side game.

Like so many others have said, this can be handled maturely, and the character isn't as extreme as it is made out to be. Or it has the potential to go downhill fast. Especially if the player is overbearing enough. A cautionary tale if you please. This one D&D group I went to for a (very short) time had a DM who couldn't handle this overbearing player there. I saw quite soon, that the player was running the game, and not the DM. The player dictated where the party went, or else his Paladin character would deem those not following him heretics and they would be dealt with accordingly. The player also had control over this group, as he was the only one with a decent play room available, a spacious basement with a large table and plenty seats, a fridge, a microwave oven, etc. None in real life dared defy him (except for me, of course, as I was actually invited by the DM to asses the situation and provide some advice, not necessarily to shake things up as I turned out to do in the end). My character didn't do as demanded (essentially, being a female character, she had to wash clothes, clean the mess kits, and to " bend over and take one for the team "...!!!), was accused of heresy, and got into a trial where she had a local cleric cast Zone of Truth. She wasn't lying, so the accusation must have been false and the demands were way past Paladin-virtuous. The paladin lost his status, and paladinhood to boot. in anger, his character attacked mine, and without his Paladin powers my character easily defeated his, mercifully keeping him alive, no less. For the first time ever, the DM felt like being a DM, instead of just some random bloke telling the overbearing player's personal fantasy story. While the DM would have wanted to see me return the next week, I was called by that very angry player and permanently disinvited for "not fitting in with the group profile". Next thing I know, the DM is over at my place for a couple of games, and two of three other players quit the game alltogether as well.

You want to run the Arda adventure? What's to stop the player from the abolitionist Wookiee to take over the ship at threat of a lightsaber, and steer away from Arda completely, thus running the game for you? If you are a stronger GM than the player is (mentally, group control here) you might stop the game from derailing. But one way or another, one side is bound to lose their fun, if this situation isn't handled with care. Not saying that it couldn't be fun, but there is a big potential for a negative play experience here.

Just to be on the other side of the board, I am currently hosting the venue for a good few months now and I always feel weary about overstepping the mark due to that privilege. Given that my character, an outlaw by the name of Tobin Stryder who is on a quest to kill his old master, an ancient sith Lord that had once held him as a vassal for two years (which funnily enough isn't backstory. It happened) that, due to his rough treatment by Jedi, his own peer and the inquisition is largely untrustworthy of other force users, more precisely he is always presenting a mask towards those he doesn't trust, which is literally only a couple in the entire unit. It's quite easy to slip into a trap of "this is on my character sheet, so I must be all about this," no tale about any single player particularly thus while an exciting concept is good, the player must figure out going into the session of how the player binds together.

I'm sorry you have had to put up with probably the worst scum imaginable, because a person who acts like that isn't a good person. I had one other person around the table that I loathed for having power fantasy's and the tendency to try and get a party wipe if he was bored. Ended up spending half the campaign being poised to stop him doing such rubbish.

Communication is the most valuable asset in my opinion and a table that can't communicate to produce a reasonable group compression, which isn't to say they have to be perfect, a little bit of friction is good for plot development and my character has a tendency of being a bit of a loose gun, although his schemes always come back around to benefiting the table, and sometimes backfiring to teach myself a good lesson. Ahaha!

If a character has a background, and the GM can intertwine it into some adventures, I feel the game is going places. No need to focus on the background of one character exclusively. Have the GM drop a hint or two during an adventure that doesn't involve the background, then run an adventure following up on those clues. Make them false info, or have the NPC get away (recurring villain like), run another regular adventure, possibly focusing on another character. To my opinion, that feels more natural, and it gives people the feeling that a GM has actually listened to their wishes and character background, while not catering to any one of them exclusively.

However, there is also a form of pecking order in not every, but still some groups. The one I mentioned had an extreme example, due to the other players not even realizing what other options they had.

I agree about communication. Session 0 to discuss character concepts, character relations, GM expectations. Also, every once in a while, a good talk about how things are going. Did everybody still have as much fun as during the first play session? Is something amiss? Does one player feel neglected? or is it clear one player is overbearing, pressing the entire group into one direction or another?

On 8/5/2018 at 5:17 PM, bsmith23 said:

The crew is (...) a wookiee tech, a wookiee melee, human hired gun, twilek pilot, human FS noble, and her near human FS paladin-Ish bodyguard.

You’re gonna have 7 players?? I can’t even imagine managing a group that big even if they were all little angels. Let alone if one of them has a motivation so involved. Not a good fit.

so this player is bringing a character just to kill the other characters?

nope... not happening

11 hours ago, RalfieT said:

You’re gonna have 7 players??

It's doable with the right GM and players. I've been doing it for the better part of the last quarter century.

1 hour ago, Vorzakk said:

It's doable with the right GM and players. I've been doing it for the better part of the last quarter century.

Same here. Core group of 7 of us regularly ( including the GM) and 1 floating depending on his work schedule. Never had any issues. Then again, we're all cleverly disguised as responsible adults so there is very little drama.

13 hours ago, Vorzakk said:

It's doable with the right GM and players. I've been doing it for the better part of the last quarter century.

I agree, although it does somewhat depend on the system you run. I had up to 15 in D&D (that got way out of hand, but was a core of 6-8 regulars, with a bunch of part-timers, usually averaging 10) that worked amazingly well. Then I had 10 in Mechwarrior, and it fell apart fast, because it just took too long to run a battle.

1 hour ago, Edgookin said:

Then I had 10 in Mechwarrior, and it fell apart fast, because it just took too long to run a battle.

I miss that game so much, but that's exactly why I dropped it.

On 10/10/2018 at 3:38 AM, Vorzakk said:

It's doable with the right GM and players. I've been doing it for the better part of the last quarter century.

Yep. I’ve had a group of 9, but not everyone was always available, so it averaged 5-6 per session, with a few that everyone was there. I always build in potential reasons for a character to not be there (which became problematic as 2 of my most reliable players just dropped out without a word, as their characters’ spotlight subplots were next on deck to take the fore).