On ‎8‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 7:37 PM, Edgehawk said:

I'm partial to the Adventuring Archaeologist trope, and it seems like your player has a key niche to fill in the campaign.. so I am somewhat puzzled by the whole "feeling left out" bit. The spec can be sort of jack-of-all-trades-ish, but those Lore checks can be important, too!

If your PC is well and truly finished with the character, I think running him as an NPC is a viable option, but discussing it with your player might be a good idea. Reintroducing him later in the game, with more XP, as an Awesome GMPC.. just to show your PC how lame he was for not realizing the character's true potential.. not so much. This is probably not quite what you had in mind, and I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but if he's a friend.. that seems like it would be kind of a **** move.

I toy back and forth with making the old PC an antagonist to face the party (who has been turned by the Empire), or as an ongoing plot hook but just as a regular NPC who occasionally feeds info/helps the PC's out. The third option is simply a 'grey' character, but that would involve discussing the motivations etc with the player, giving up the surprise later on.

22 hours ago, Ghostofman said:

Sounds to me like the Archy is going to be their new NPC employer/quest giver, and the overall story hasn't changed a while lot...

I mean, you may have to work a little bit to explain how that happened (sounds like a good adventure involving a recently deceased wealthy distant relative with an oddly specific will to me), but once you have a reason in place for the Archy to step back and bankroll the whole thing, you're done. And it keeps the Archy alive and available if the Player changes his mind again. 

This isn't a bad idea actually.

16 hours ago, emsquared said:

Archaeologist is a super weird spec... A hard fail at making an Indiana Jones archetype?

Too bad he's already rebuilt, would have suggested using Investigator to keep a similar character concept/the same character, but to actually be useful.

So long as someone's paying the party (well) though, why would they switch paths?

Bring the PC back (and keep them involved in the same story line) by having the main Antagonist capture the former-PC. They're all tied to him you said right? Meanwhile BBEG is coercing the former-PC into helping the Empire?

2 hours ago, Edgehawk said:

The Archaeologist spec isn't really awesome by itself, but few specs are; it has the left side of the tree for punching nazis, and the right for tedious academia. Well Rounded is at the start of the tree, so one can add Skullduggery, or better social/combat capability. It is what you make of it, as any spec. Force Adherent now offers some great synergy as a second spec, with Lore-based talents.

That's exactly what I mentioned during the 'talk' with him. It's basically an Indiana Jones build. However, he wasn't impressed with brawl skills being useless in combat because 'everything is ranged' (not true of course, as we have two melee/brawl oriented characters who have no troubles there). The lore side he felt wasn't doing anything helpful to the group, citing he kept failing rolls, which really can't be helped.

However, I admitted part of the blame here saying that I could work more on fleshing out the lore for him to sandbox in. Still didn't help.

As to the story, considering both this player and another both have hidden 'rebel' backgrounds, it's easy enough to move into the empire/rebel territory and do the whole race against time for powerful artefacts that each side wants. Just need to narrow down specific ideas.

10 hours ago, Decorus said:

Here is the thing I'm not big on booting players, but from what it sounds like he isn't having any fun, he's making the GM not have any fun and is making the other players not have any fun.

I'm not sure another character is going to fix this...

This. This 1000x. He does have a group reputation of basically playing various classes/characters throughout multiple RPG's we run as really the same type of combat-orientated, quick-save cautious, video-game character. Admittedly he's getting better, but it's a long slog.

We have brought up whether this is the right style for him (technically it's his (and ours) only group), but outside the RP aspects of the game nights, we all enjoy him and each other's company, so it's hard to keep pushing and we generally just relent and play for what it is and what comes out each session.

10 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

Probably not, but I think it's worth a try to talk to him about the issues with the game. I mean, saying "my character feels useless" is a pretty vague statement. Asking things like "how do you feel like your character isn't contributing?" "what would you like to get an opportunity to do to feel useful?" are good questions I think.

As above, but have specifically asked these questions, with responses boiling down to 'I just don't feel like playing that character, so that's that'. It's almost like RP'ing is a threat to his identity. He could never play a character to be seen as weak or fallible.

10 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

As a general rule, by session 4, if every character hasn't had at least 1-2 situations that heavily lean to their area of proficiency, then a GM isn't doing a good starting job I think. If I've got a player who is a saboteur, by session 4, it's pretty much a guarantee that something explodey will be involved. Either to disarm, or set up. If there is a Medic/Doctor in the party, they will encounter a group of NPC's that are in dire need of some medical treatment, and helping them will reward the party in some way, either immediately or down the line. Etc etc.

Completely agree. I need to do more of it though to include not just him, but everyone. Though how often does one get to rig something to blow or defuse something?

32 minutes ago, Snowman81 said:

This. This 1000x. He does have a group reputation of basically playing various classes/characters throughout multiple RPG's we run as really the same type of combat-orientated, quick-save cautious, video-game character. Admittedly he's getting better, but it's a long slog.

We have brought up whether this is the right style for him (technically it's his (and ours) only group), but outside the RP aspects of the game nights, we all enjoy him and each other's company, so it's hard to keep pushing and we generally just relent and play for what it is and what comes out each session.

34 minutes ago, Snowman81 said:

As above, but have specifically asked these questions, with responses boiling down to 'I just don't feel like playing that character, so that's that'. It's almost like RP'ing is a threat to his identity. He could never play a character to be seen as weak or fallible.

Ah, so he's a ROLLplayer, not a ROLEplayer, got it. Yeah I've known several like this. It's all about the numbers, and making those numbers as big and efficient and effective as possible. Anything that is seen as a failure, or a reduction in optimum effectiveness is discarded as if it were human feces.

*sighs* This is a hard one to crack, as I've tried it for over a decade with two of my closest friends. They have a VERY hard time acting. They are both very socially awkward introverts, so doing stuff that draws attention to them (ie: acting like their character, saying dramatic things, etc) makes them REALLY uncomfortable. They just want to do another encounter, roll their dice, succeed, get xp, and buy new stuff to repeat the process. It doesn't always work, in fact most of the time it doesn't, and I resign myself to just playing it mechanically, with little to no drama or theatricality to the campaign.

What I tried doing that helped a bit, was to offer a 5xp bonus at the end of the session, for people who behaved in a way that was fitting to their character. Whether this was actually acting like their character, and having a short little monologue, or taking actions that would be fitting, but maybe not beneficial to the character or group. For example, a character with an Addiction, who goes on a drunken binge one night, and shows up to their heist hungover, and suffering from penalties.

This sometimes works, but sometimes they just will NOT roleplay.

39 minutes ago, Snowman81 said:

Completely agree. I need to do more of it though to include not just him, but everyone. Though how often does one get to rig something to blow or defuse something?

Well, if Star Wars Rebels is any indication, just about every episode I mean, with a saboteur in the group, they should be actively LOOKING for things to blow up, especially if they are with the Rebellion. There cell would likely be given explosion jobs all the time, since they are ideally suited to handle them.

There are absolutely no problems that can not be solved with the proper application of high explosives.

8 hours ago, Decorus said:

There are absolutely no problems that can not be solved with the proper application of high explosives.

My Archaeologist is also the party's de facto grenadier. Highly recommend carrying a sensible surveyor's satchel, with a couple easily accessible grenades. Put that Ranged Light , from Well Rounded to good use! One of them should be an N-4 Noise Grenade , of course, if damaging important (valuable) relics is a concern.

On 8/21/2018 at 11:40 PM, KungFuFerret said:

Ah, so he's a ROLLplayer, not a ROLEplayer, got it. Yeah I've known several like this. It's all about the numbers, and making those numbers as big and efficient and effective as possible. Anything that is seen as a failure, or a reduction in optimum effectiveness is discarded as if it were human feces.

*sighs* This is a hard one to crack, as I've tried it for over a decade with two of my closest friends. They have a VERY hard time acting. They are both very socially awkward introverts, so doing stuff that draws attention to them (ie: acting like their character, saying dramatic things, etc) makes them REALLY uncomfortable. They just want to do another encounter, roll their dice, succeed, get xp, and buy new stuff to repeat the process. It doesn't always work, in fact most of the time it doesn't, and I resign myself to just playing it mechanically, with little to no drama or theatricality to the campaign.

What I tried doing that helped a bit, was to offer a 5xp bonus at the end of the session, for people who behaved in a way that was fitting to their character. Whether this was actually acting like their character, and having a short little monologue, or taking actions that would be fitting, but maybe not beneficial to the character or group. For example, a character with an Addiction, who goes on a drunken binge one night, and shows up to their heist hungover, and suffering from penalties.

This sometimes works, but sometimes they just will NOT roleplay.

Yeeeeap. I mean, as I mentioned before he is getting better, and has sometimes outshone the other RP'ers (mainly being himself in character), which is always entertaining.

I've been tempted to go down the route of 'different xp for different gameplay aspects'. He'd certainly get annoyed not getting any (or as much) RP xp as the others because (and this is key), in his mind he IS roleplaying his character. So very little could be said to convince him otherwise and it would just go downhill from there.

As for him nuking everything as a saboteur, who can throw me some ideas beyond the obvious 'grenades-in-combat' and planting/defusing explosives (or point me in the right direction)? Anything else I could use that wouldn't involve explosives? Would be looking for advantage/threat ideas as well when he's using them just to keep him on his toes.

I don't think this will be a thing, but, one thing I'm nervous about is that his explosion fetish overshadows moments of the rest of the party?

24 minutes ago, Snowman81 said:

Yeeeeap. I mean, as I mentioned before he is getting better, and has sometimes outshone the other RP'ers (mainly being himself in character), which is always entertaining.

I've been tempted to go down the route of 'different xp for different gameplay aspects'. He'd certainly get annoyed not getting any (or as much) RP xp as the others because (and this is key), in his mind he IS roleplaying his character. So very little could be said to convince him otherwise and it would just go downhill from there.

Well that's why I usually just keep the reward a flat +5 xp, one time reward. If they do stuff that amuses me/is in character/takes them out of their comfort zone a bit by ACTING/etc, then they get it. It's been my experience, that usually with that tiny incentive, it helps to nudge them out of their non-acting mode, and loosen up a bit. Again, doesn't always work, but gamers are willing to do a lot of things for a reward.

26 minutes ago, Snowman81 said:

As for him nuking everything as a saboteur, who can throw me some ideas beyond the obvious 'grenades-in-combat' and planting/defusing explosives (or point me in the right direction)? Anything else I could use that wouldn't involve explosives? Would be looking for advantage/threat ideas as well when he's using them just to keep him on his toes.

I don't think this will be a thing, but, one thing I'm nervous about is that his explosion fetish overshadows moments of the rest of the party?

Well for one, not every combat needs to have explosions, just like not every session needs to have a combat. As to what things can he blow up, honestly I'd say that should be more his question than you. He should be thinking creatively on how to asplode things in productive ways. Though I would try and keep a mental note of various objects in the everyday scenes they might start fighting in, that could be sabotaged with explosive results. For example, overloading a nearby speederbike and sending it at top speed towards a wall so they can make a quick escape. Overloading a nearby power junction to short out a squad of troopers attacking them. A nearby fuel depot for speeders, etc etc. Good rule of thumb, if the thing has a combustion engine, or uses some kind of magicy-science powersource (all over the place in Star Wars), it can probably be fiddled with to go critical, and thus asplode. Now whether or not your player will think of things like that? *shrugs* That's on him. I find a LOT of gamers don't actually take into consideration the environment when deciding actions in combat. They simply see lines of sight, and cover, and rarely think "Hey, we're on Coruscant, like EVERYWHERE is a building with power, I wonder if I shut down the grid here to plunge the area into darkness and let us escape." Or "the GM said we were in a parking lot, that means there are speeders around, I wonder if I can hotwire one of them so we can escape."

But that would be my advice to you for improvised explosives, Does it burn a fuel? Does it have a reactor/tapped into a city grid? If yes, then they should be able to do a skill check to try and make it go boom. And it doesn't always have to be for damage. Perhaps the thing in question would work better as a flashbang, as it wouldn't make sense that it does damage. Or perhaps it would be best as an improvised emp grenade, etc. Try and seed the scene with options though, be sure to describe features around them, multiple times if they are particularly obtuse. And if they still aren't getting the hints, have him roll perception and just TELL HIM some of his nearby options to blow up.

1 hour ago, KungFuFerret said:

Well for one, not every combat needs to have explosions, just like not every session needs to have a combat. As to what things can he blow up, honestly I'd say that should be more his question than you. He should be thinking creatively on how to asplode things in productive ways. Though I would try and keep a mental note of various objects in the everyday scenes they might start fighting in, that could be sabotaged with explosive results. For example, overloading a nearby speederbike and sending it at top speed towards a wall so they can make a quick escape. Overloading a nearby power junction to short out a squad of troopers attacking them. A nearby fuel depot for speeders, etc etc. Good rule of thumb, if the thing has a combustion engine, or uses some kind of magicy-science powersource (all over the place in Star Wars), it can probably be fiddled with to go critical, and thus asplode. Now whether or not your player will think of things like that? *shrugs* That's on him. I find a LOT of gamers don't actually take into consideration the environment when deciding actions in combat. They simply see lines of sight, and cover, and rarely think "Hey, we're on Coruscant, like EVERYWHERE is a building with power, I wonder if I shut down the grid here to plunge the area into darkness and let us escape." Or "the GM said we were in a parking lot, that means there are speeders around, I wonder if I can hotwire one of them so we can escape."

But that would be my advice to you for improvised explosives, Does it burn a fuel? Does it have a reactor/tapped into a city grid? If yes, then they should be able to do a skill check to try and make it go boom. And it doesn't always have to be for damage. Perhaps the thing in question would work better as a flashbang, as it wouldn't make sense that it does damage. Or perhaps it would be best as an improvised emp grenade, etc. Try and seed the scene with options though, be sure to describe features around them, multiple times if they are particularly obtuse. And if they still aren't getting the hints, have him roll perception and just TELL HIM some of his nearby options to blow up. 

Am liking where this is heading. I had a chat yesterday with another player in the group about setting the scenes, and he somewhat echoed your sentiments in that it's up to the players to engage and ask questions of the environments they find themselves in. I've been feeling like I've been lacking the in the descriptions (which is due to some occasional last-minute prep if i'm honest), but both you and him are right.

As for ideas, thanks for the thoughts on power sources. I hadn't thought of that. Now it'll be up to the saboteur to also start thinking laterally when I throw them into various situations. There's also the slicer, so between the two of them, they should be pulling some rather crazy non-combat antics.

4 minutes ago, Snowman81 said:

Am liking where this is heading. I had a chat yesterday with another player in the group about setting the scenes, and he somewhat echoed your sentiments in that it's up to the players to engage and ask questions of the environments they find themselves in. I've been feeling like I've been lacking the in the descriptions (which is due to some occasional last-minute prep if i'm honest), but both you and him are right.

As for ideas, thanks for the thoughts on power sources. I hadn't thought of that. Now it'll be up to the saboteur to also start thinking laterally when I throw them into various situations. There's also the slicer, so between the two of them, they should be pulling some rather crazy non-combat antics.

Yeah, I've been gaming for like 25 years in either tabletop or online format, and forgetting to adequately describe the location has been a common problem, for both players and GM's in my experience. It's understandable, when you are setting up the scene, things that are literally the background usually don't have importance, that's why they're background. But as a player who personally thrives on utilizing the environment to defeat challenges, it's something I instantly focus on, asking questions about what's around that I could utilize, etc. That's just how I roleplay encounters, because I find it fun. But I fully appreciate that most don't think that way, or at least don't try and actually utilize that information constructively.

But yeah, just try and take a minute or so, for each scene, and try and think of some things that could go boom with creative mayhem being applied first. And then just hope your player thinks about it. Though again, if he's really bad at thinking like that, you can always allow his skills to do it for him.

As one of the GM's who host the Order 66 podcast said, his wife was playing a social character, and was getting into a debate with him (the GM), and wasn't doing well. She stood there for a few seconds to try and think of a witty remark, and then just rolled her dice and said "My character is more eloquent than I am, so I'll let the dice do this." Same thing goes for explosions. If the player just doesn't think that way, or maybe needs a few sessions to warm up to that line of thinking, be sure to remind him he can make a skill check to try and locate something to blow up, and then just point him to one of the things you've had in mind that could explode. Hopefully, after a few sessions of you saying things like "You think *insert random background item* could be jury-rigged to explode" He'll get the idea

15 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

Yeah, I've been gaming for like 25 years in either tabletop or online format, and forgetting to adequately describe the location has been a common problem, for both players and GM's in my experience. It's understandable, when you are setting up the scene, things that are literally the background usually don't have importance, that's why they're background. But as a player who personally thrives on utilizing the environment to defeat challenges, it's something I instantly focus on, asking questions about what's around that I could utilize, etc. That's just how I roleplay encounters, because I find it fun. But I fully appreciate that most don't think that way, or at least don't try and actually utilize that information constructively.

But yeah, just try and take a minute or so, for each scene, and try and think of some things that could go boom with creative mayhem being applied first. And then just hope your player thinks about it. Though again, if he's really bad at thinking like that, you can always allow his skills to do it for him.

As one of the GM's who host the Order 66 podcast said, his wife was playing a social character, and was getting into a debate with him (the GM), and wasn't doing well. She stood there for a few seconds to try and think of a witty remark, and then just rolled her dice and said "My character is more eloquent than I am, so I'll let the dice do this." Same thing goes for explosions. If the player just doesn't think that way, or maybe needs a few sessions to warm up to that line of thinking, be sure to remind him he can make a skill check to try and locate something to blow up, and then just point him to one of the things you've had in mind that could explode. Hopefully, after a few sessions of you saying things like "You think *insert random background item* could be jury-rigged to explode" He'll get the idea

In a way I've been doing that with the Duros pilot, suggesting things she could do while flying around as she's not only new to RPG's but to FFG's system as well. Might need to go back to basics for the saboteur player too and get everyone on the same page.

And nice, been doing the same for roughly the same as well, on and off, but it's great to jump back in and refresh the simpler (well, I say simpler but that's completely subjective) GM tips to hit that number one rule of fun for the other players. Always learning with this hobby, it's awesome.

Anyway, with any luck, the group will begin to gel more and more into the narrative side compared to the other systems. Speaking of, as a player in that other system which doesn't do nearly as good a job of narrating events, I find I focus on the similar things as you as well.

I haven't dealt with players switching characters before so take this with a grain of salt but...

Personally, I wouldn't let the change get in the way of a good story. If the character is needed for the story then I'd probably take one of the following:

1) Play the Chiss as an GM-NPC and keep them in the group (I don't really like this option).

2) Give the Chiss a narratively important death and use it to drive the story. Perhaps he tasks the group with something as a dying wish.

3) Have the Chiss get kidnapped by the Imperial General/Archaeologist (this is my favorite). This buys you some time because you don't have to kill him off right away. If your group saves him, then your player could switch back or whatever at that point. If not, this opens them up to be compromised by the empire or eventually killed, or perhaps released to "aid" your PCs (with potential for double cross). Anyways, I don't like the idea of him just leaving the team and it sounds like it will derail your campaign.

Anyways, I'd get the players buy in up front.

There's also the "promoted to a desk job" option. They can stick around as a source of info and plot hooks, but game stats will be largely irrelevant.

1 hour ago, HappyDaze said:

There's also the "promoted to a desk job" option. They can stick around as a source of info and plot hooks, but game stats will be largely irrelevant.

If I went this direction I would definitely play this NPC as Dwight Schrute from that point on ?