I think the "stand and fight to the bitter end" mindset is pretty endemic of D&D and the vast majority of d20 games, particularly those where magical (or a reasonable facsimile of) healing exists or characters have "buckets of hit points" (D&D 4e primarily but Saga Edition as well, though the later made up for it with weapons that had a much higher default damage value than D&D). D20 Modern and Babylon 5 were among the few d20-based games where getting into a shootout and not seeking cover tended to lead to dead PCs.

From the three sessions that I've played so far, the only character to really stand out in the open for the most part was my Force-Sensitive Smuggler/Scoundrel, mostly as I had the Ongoing Effect for sense, so I could make whoever was shooting at me have a much harder time of hitting me, and that was only for the first combat against a bunch of mooks. The second serious combat was against a bunch of Tusken Raiders, and the two shooters they had were taken out before they could even act with the rest simply not able to reach us to engage in melee, turning the fight into a turkey shoot for the PCs and with the last two surviving Tuskens bailing the scene before the blood-crazed Trandoshan Marauder could carve them up with his vibro-knife.

In the second session, when faced with a bunch of stormtroopers, everyone but the Trando sought out some kind of cover, and even then my character was the only one to escape that fight unscathed (being able to inflict a challenge die and a setback die helps a lot in that regard). The Trando however was built with an abnormally high Soak Value (a 7 if I remember right), so he could afford to stay out in the open, but even still he wound up taking a few solid hits, quickly seeking out cover and needing a stimpack after the fight, though anyone else would have been KO'd if suffering the same number of hits.

For the one-shot I ran this past weekend, one player (whose played almost nothing but d20 games) got a very rude surprise when his Wookiee got dropped in the second combat encounter, and he played much smarter in the remaining fights, making use of cover and any setback dice that could be inflicted on the bad guys to get close enough to engage the enemy with his vibro-ax. The players that had played other systems, such as D6 Star Wars, Deadlands Classic, and Savage Worlds, had no problem with playing it smart and making use of cover to protect their tender hides.

@Sutter

My favorite example is about 30 mins into the first movie when Luke's pansy blonde @$$ gets pimped slapped by Tusken Raider.

In game terms it goes something like this:

GM: Luke takes 12 wounds from the Sand Person's gaffi stick.

Luke's Player: WTF IS A SAND PERSON!? We just started playing this game!

GM: The mummy-face lookin' guy that just hit you with a stick

LP: Where'd he come from!?

GM: He was able to sneak up on you. You missed him when you failed that perception roll.

LP: Well, 12 wound is my threshold. I'm unconscious.

GM: … dammit. Fine, Old Ben shows up and saves your hide. Be more careful next time.

<Luke's player sulks and waits to throw "I'll be more careful next time" in the stupid GM's face… jerk sand people.>

-WJL

Donovan Morningfire said:

Nah. Players always hate running away.

Even if you make them do it they are probably not happy about it.

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=101&efcid=46&efidt=653168

And seriously guys, all you do in Gears of War is take cover. Would you be happy if they wanted to play Gears of War: The RPG?

AluminiumWolf said:

Just curious - could you stop talking for all people, and acknowledge that your views are merely your opinions, in the absence of proof that 100% of players always hate running away.

I mean, I can prove that wrong straight away - my fiancee rarely ever takes combat skills on her characters (she prefers social/intellectual characters), and actively attempts to avoid combat, including running away frequently.

We also play the Doctor Who RPG, where running away is one of the first tactics you use when monsters turn up.

So, please, stop talking as though you are stating objective fact, because, surprisingly enough, you aren't.

Maybe, but I do heartily recommend that GMs consider that the answer to the age old question 'why don't my players run away' is probably 'because they don't want to'.

You may then decide if you want to force them to anyway.

@LethalDose

Dude, I laughed my ass off. Good one.

Indeed, yet another classic example of the awesome and brutal nature of Star Wars combat.

Perhaps a mildy relevant question is why do you want to make your players sulk?

Why do you insist on thinking all gamers are mindless, hack 'n' slash, mmorpg morons who think all there is to having fun in a game is how many things you can kill.

If your players are like that then so be it but, unfortunately, they're missing out on what makes these games truly fun…..ROLEPLAYING and there's a Hell of a lot more to that then kicking in a door and shooting **** up.

Sutter said:

Can't we have both?

And if your players want to run away you won't need rules to force them to do so, will you.

Dude, you keep making it sound like everyone's against combat, but I'm all for wicked, kick ass battles. Some of your most dramatic moments occur during, or as a result of, said events.

The point is, combat SHOULD be lethal and deadly. It shouldn't be watered down just to encourage long drawn out fights. No one's stopping or telling anyone that they have to "run away" but if you're whining about your character dying, then you should take measures to keep him alive.

It's up to the player how their character acts and reacts but they should also be willing to except what ever consequences happen to befall them. If they die because they tore down a corridor and into a massive gunfight and did so without thinking, when a little planning or cleverness may have saved their asses, so be it.

AluminiumWolf said:

AluminiumWolf said:

@AluminumWolf: Are you sure this is a thread you want cite to post to support your "players don't want to/shouldn't run away from combat" position? After reading this thread, I really wonder if you read any of it. None of it supports you're position.

Some Excerpts:

From the OP, the essence of the thread:

Alekzanter said:

The first response is representative of 95% of the rest:

Zakalwe said:

Implying that being reckless will cause you major trouble

This is followed by:

BrotherKane said:

Another one:

N0-1_H3r3 said:

There's one that basically states he's playing devil's advocate:

Erborn said:

And its completely inappropriate for the setting we're talking about. I don't think anyone on this board thinks fringers should behave as, what is it… "servants of the Holy Ordos"?

So basically… WTF man? This entire thread has a very very solid message in 2 parts:

• Yeah, the players should run away sometimes, especially if they're out-gunned or at a major disadvantage, and
• If they players refuse to, screw 'em! They asked for it.

And these opinions are way more severe than what I was recommending, by finding non-combat solutions to encounters.

Just… actually READ what you're linking… This is embarrassing.

-WJL

Pretty much the age old argument of star wars along with light sabers , The heroes also do stupidly suicidal things and survive. Its deadly to everyone but the heroes. Until certain dramatic points and then it's only a close call or a replacement hand..

Luke was a henchman of the droids until his player showed up to rescue the princess from the big base if you wish Its not about fighting to zero hp. Or making combat the only way to go. Of course the heroes shouldn't be able to stalk and murder everyone on the death star. Or take out a star destroyer with a frieghter. Or blow up a space station the size of a moon with only fighters…. Oh wait. That part was dramatic so it's fine.

A chase or retreat is still a combat that needa surviving, holing up in a corridor trying to figure a way out needs surviving. And so on. Doesn't have to be easy. But should be possible. True star wars isn't Rambo but they are expected to survive … Barely and with some trickery and aLot of luck perhaps but they do.

And true star wars is about more than combat and action and this varity is what makes it great. BUT combat is a major part of the setting as well.

As i said combat isn't deadly in edge, you get knocked out more often than not and this is good for pulp. But it happens to easily. In my opinion.

Not easily enough in others opinions which is fine not really a Big Deal.. So realy some guidance on scaling, hard core fringe to fringe unleashed may be in order. So people's can tweak as desired for their vision of the setting. Since honestly either vision has merit.

To me based on how its described, criticals are wounds and wounds are more like threat or something. This could be made a narrative function, your wounds are maxed how do you lose? Or escape or whatever. Or just be adjusted. wounds heal quicker cause it's just a bruise. not a true injury like a Crit.

Maybe something like going to zero wounds doesn't knock you out unless you chose to be knocked out,, but if you stay up each hit is now a Crit. Sure you don't want to pass out? Though that could make combat drag ass to much.

Regardless it looks like wounds and minion skills are the best places to leverage the various flavors without breaking other things.

Minions could maybe be ranked mob through elite, to determine how quickly skills grow.

adrick said:

Exactly. And when those heroes stormed that well-guarded detention block, did anyone get hurt? The entire time they were on the Death Star, did any hero even get hit? Obviously Obi-wan did at the end, but that was more of a narrative occurrence. I have no problem with damage being deadly. But characters being easily hit by multiple blaster shots, to wake up a while later with minor injuries doesn't seem like Star Wars to me.

LethalDose said:

Yes. Even in Dark Heresy players hate to run away. The rest of that thread is just a bunch of GMs sitting around trying to railroad their players in to playing the game the way they think they should.

Or perhaps more on point, failing to accept that players don't run away because they don't want to.

--

Frankly, I strongly suspect that trying to get someone who is playing a character who would write 'Badass' as their job description to run away and like it is on a hiding to nothing.

Not only do players hate running away but it is also not covered in the rules, thus giving them no idea what to expect should they even attempt it. Also running away is seen, correctly, as a non-solution amongst players because if you run away from the Black Moon mercenary squad that has come to fight you and actually escape you're just going to end up fighting the Red Star Mercenary squad which is very similar to the Black Moon squad the DM took the time to plan an encounter for. DM's recycle, it's a fact. So might as well fight it now.

And yes, obviously the rules here are far too deadly for PC's. Genre emulation is important and in the Star Wars canon we are trying to emulate it is obviously clear that combat is a lot deadlier for NPC's than for PC's. The PC party take close to no hits in the films and there must be a thousand blaster shots that shoot by the screen over around and through them. That simply couldn't happen by the rules laid out here. So combat obviously needs to be more survivable to PC's.

Also to everyone posting in this thread and others here. Count how many times you insult or insinuate incompetence on the part of another persons DM or group. If this number is greater than none you are probably wrong about the things you are saying. You are not better at playing imaginary games than the person you are attacking. An appropriate response to someone saying that combat is too deadly for instance might be "How deadly is too deadly? Does it break the canon of the films it's trying to emulate?" and a moronic response might be "Well if your players could learn to play like REAL players and not little munchkin powergamer WOW playing whiny babies they wouldn't HAVE that problem. I'm a real roleplayer and I play imaginary games WAY BETTER THAN YOU. I win at them all the time and I eat raw steaks!" So don't do that.

The idea of wanting a system that kills players easily as some sort of punishment because it "teaches them to play right" is laughable and absurd. TTRPG's do not have objective difficulty. Also it's a fantasy. Ask yourself how many of your characters have died. In all the games you've played in the last 5 years how many characters have died. Half? A third? No. Probably very close to none. And that's not because you are so awesome at imaginary games that you're beating the system. It's because you aren't playing a system with objective difficulty. The DM and the system are expected to pretend you're in danger but actually always let you win and almost never kill you. This is because since Second Edition D&D character creation has been a goddamn HUGE process so we all just politely agreed to generally stop killing each others characters. This makes sense. If you spend 6 hours concepting up and writing up a character then it is expected that you get a reasonable return on your investment. That means no killing that character right away. So lets all be honest here. You are not going to teach your players anything. You are not going to kill them. And in a system meant to represent a specific set of films it is very possible that these rules are too deadly to do so effectively.

P.S. @Lethaldose: I have a retort for your last post at me but it seemed like the thread had moved on a bit. I'll get back to it tomorrow

@MrBaldwin

They did have surprise on their side and they already had their weapons at the ready. They went in prepared.

As far as game mechanics go, they were probably burning through Destiny Points pretty quick and the tables turned on them pretty quickly as well. They went in strong but instead of attempting to fight their way out, they opted to go for the escape. Why? Because it was getting too dangerous to hang around any longer.

@AluminiumWolf

Basically, it seems that you're the type that just likes having everything stacked in your favor. If you like games that you know you're guaranteed to "win" at, maybe roleplaying games aren't for you. Roleplaying games are supposed to bring that inherent risk of "bad things can happen" and though you may succeed, it should NEVER be a guarantee.

@deanruel

How about you guys just have it where your PC's are immune to damage, that way you won't have to ever worry about them dying.

Sutter said:

I agree with the bolded part 100%, but why does it necessarily have to be the threat of physical harm? As has been restated over and over again, important characters in Stars Wars are just not harmed very often, and when they are it is a very dramatic event. The threat of combat, the majority of the time, should be the loss of something else besides health or life. It could be anything really; an escape route, important equipment, allies, reputation, freedom (by being captured). Whatever it is, it should make the PCs hesitant to enter combat because it will make life more difficult if they don't wrap it up quickly, not because they fear their characters falling unconscious in a couple of hits.

At least, that's a point I think people keep trying to make that manages to always get trod over and ignored. I really don't believe anyone is arguing for having blaster immune characters that can steamroll a deathstar's worth of stormtroopers. What I feel they're asking for, or at least what I'm asking for, is combat that has consequences that are true to the source and don't involve the characters getting shot up every combat.

deanruel said:

I think there are two arguements here that are overlapping, though there is a deep gulf between them:

1. It's too easy to get KO'd [Game term: "Incapacitated"] from wounds.
2. It's too easy to kill PCs

These are not the same. Yes, it is easy to Incapped in combat. Its much easier to get incapped if you are reckless in your play style.

However, it is not easy to die in this game . Not by a ******* long shot. Remember, exceeding your wound threshold is not death. Death comes to players who have suffered no fewer than 5 critical injuries . Seriously, read the crit table (Table 6-10, pg 142). Even when you are bleeding out (the 131-140 result) you still can't die from that injury! Further crit results that are caused by THAT critical injury's effect are clearly stated to ignore the next two results that lead to death. Short of suffocation, drowning, falling off a cliff, getting spaced, dying in a hellish inferno as the starship you're traveling on explodes, or having a star cruiser fall on you, I simply can't find other ways for characters to die . Okay, yes, there are some abilities (vicious, lethal blows) that increase the modifier on the crit roll, but they aren't common enough to nullify what I have to say.

So, some people will take critical injuries when rolls go badly for them (No more than 1/hit, though, regardless of how many triumphs and advantages you rolled. Pg 108, under CR), but usually players will take a critical injury when their wounds exceed their wound threshold, at the same time they go unconscious. So with their threshold exceeded and they're unconscious, they're aren't dead. Once more:

THEY STILL AREN'T DEAD.

To die at this point, they either have to get up and create a target for the enemies and get shot again [and in all likelihodd, do this s everal more times ], or an NPC (or incredibly unfriendly player) has to walk up to them and keep shooting their unconscious body!!!

If you're at a game and a GM or player does this, and there isn't some incredibly extenuating RP circumstance that would cause an N/PC would do this, then you should leave the game! Don't go back, just leave. This is incredibly poor sportsmanship for anyone. This is not "I'm taking my ball and going home", this is either a rude player, or GM who enjoys playing "f*ck the characters".

So even if an NPC does this to your character, and you have the 5 critical wound, then you have to roll 91+ on a d100 (10% chance) to get the crit result: "You die at the end of the next round". That crit may not do it, so to die, they have to keep trying!

So now, we are obliged to ask the following:

WHO THE F&CK PLAYS LIKE THIS!?!?!?!?!

Seriously, if you come on here making claims that the game is just far too lethal to represent Star Wars, I can only think of a few possibilities to explain why you and I see it so differently:

1. I have some fundamentally flawed idea how this game works
2. You have some fundamentally flawed idea this game works
3. We have vastly different play/GM styles
4. You have read the rules, and think they're outrageous, but lack the empirical evidence to actually say "its too lethal"
5. You get abused by your GM or other players
6. You don't understand that "Wounds over threshold" is not "Dead"

Seriously, I don't see how you can go from what I've laid out, to this:

deanruel said:

I'm serious when I ask the following: Have I made a mistake interpreting any of the rules I've cited ? If so, please tell me. People make mistakes, this is Beta, something may not be clear. But this how my play group has read it.

So, let's turn this around. How many player characters have you personally killed, or had killed running, EotE? If it's more than none, I think there's something to look at, and I'd be curious to see how some actually managed to die.

Personally, after about 6 combats, I've crit my players a few times. It scared them, but they lived. No one was worried about death. Captured, maybe, but not death.

So bottom line: Lets talk about how easy it is to get incapped in combat (its not infrequent, but its not common), or lets talk about it being too lethal (its not), but lets keep them separate.

And the whole party getting KO'd isn't a TPK. Its a chance for more story telling as the players are captured, or the creature that beat them drags them back to its den, a la Luke and the Wampa in ESB.

-WJL

Ugh, I hate the quote mechanism here… Anyway…

@seadaily and others:

Is it possible you feel that the characters didn't get injured simply because they being were careful not to get hurt? I'm thinking of the firefight in the detention block when they're pinned down and the escape from cloud city, they were frequently ducking behind cover, checking down a hallway. It's when they took risks or weren't paying attention (Luke and the wampa, again, luke's prosthetic getting shot on the sail barge, Leia getting shot on endor) that they did get hurt.

Maybe what you saw was not due to the mechanics saying "you shouldn't get hurt", but instead it was the player/character playing it safe.

Just something to think about.

-WJL

LethalDose said:

This. Very much this.

For most of the movies, we saw the heroes playing it smart and using some basic tactical thinking unlike the vast majority of Hollywood Action Movie Heroes. The only heroes we specifically don't see doing such things are the well-trained Jedi characters, who have the benefit of a weapon that can deflect incoming fire.

Han's brazen charge at a group of stormtroopers was a bluff on his part, one that worked until the stormtroopers had to stand and fight, at which point they realized it was only one man chasing after them and not several armed attackers. At which point, Han's war cry changes to a cry of surprise and alarm before he turns around and runs the other way while being pursued by stormtroopers.

As for the Death Star scene, there's also the point brought up, even in the movie itself, that once Leia had been liberated from the detention level, the stormtroopers were given specific orders to let the heroes escape, primarily so that the Empire could then track them back to the hidden Rebel base. So you've got trained soldiers with a standing order from the most high-ranking officer on board to not shoot to kill, but rather to make the heroes think that they've managed to clean getaway. Take not of Han's cocky reply to Leia's statement of the Empire tracking the Falcon; he was pretty impressed with himself and was letting his guard down. Leia knew better, but was at the mercy of a mercenary pilot and knew that she was fast running out of options and places to go other than the Rebel Base.

By the time of ESB, the heroes are far more experienced, so while Stormtroopers are a threat, they're not as big a one, and even then the heroes fight smart rather than go charging blindly in.

For TPM, in the hanger/palace battle sequences, Padme and her troops seek out cover and then start blasting while the two Jedi (one a Master, the other almost a Knight) use their lightsabers to draw fire and deflect it. The only time the good guys make a brazenly open attack is when Sabe, in her role as decoy, draws the Viceroy's attention and allowing Padme to get access to those hidden blasters.

You guys make a good point about the characters taking risks versus playing it safe. I guess the problem I still see here is that from my limited experience with the game so far, is that the defensive measures presented don't go very far in making it hard to hit the PCs. I mean, even with the characters taking cover, the one setback die, maybe a second from some other player's roll, didn't really help much. Maybe if setback dice were more potent, but overall they didn't seem to have too much impact. Now obviously there is the boon dice built into the system to reward players for clever thinking and proper planning, but I just don't see much that helps insure the PCs don't get hit when they are taking proper precaution.

I should point out that I have no trouble with the lethality of the game. I realized pretty quickly that it is very hard to actually kill PCs in this game. As I've said before, I just feel the threat of combat is focused in the wrong direction. How about this, what if there was some mechanic that shifted the consequences based upon how the characters were acting? The system would work largely as it does now if they're taking stupid risks, and they can be shot to pieces. On the other hand, if they're playing it smart, taking cover, making good plans and tactical choices, then the risks become more heavily weighted away from physical harm.

Who the heck want to play it safe in a Star Wars RPG?

AluminiumWolf said:

Some would argue that to play safe in a STAR WARS RPG is to play a character with tons of hitpoints and litle chance to be in any real danger in any given situation.

The current system lends itself better, in my limited experience, to the notion of taking risks (and rewards) in combat and out of combat.

It's dangerous, fast, dynamic, and it doesen't feel safe. You can be out of the fight soon. You can be hurt. You can be captured.

On the other hand it is really hard for you to immediately die, because of the brillant way the critical injury system works.

So players are taking RISKS with their character, as they don't want to be out of action, and because of that they will want to play smart, taking cover, aiming, thinking out of the box, shooting the panel that shuts down the door and prevents coming enemy reinforcements, etc…

In the first session I played, while one of the players (the assassin) was shooting and drawing fire at the opposition, other player (the pilot) run to the ship, thinking out of the box, spent a destiny point to have handy in the ship a long chain which was able to pull the crates, that were located in the middle of a path that was inacessible by air, then he took the RISK of flying the ship into the right position (risking ship damage), in order to retrieve said crates from the ground.

If combat was always safe, if the players diden't felt threatened, if it wasn't a dangerous thing to do, there would be no point in taking RISKS, in and out of combat.

There is no RISK if there is nothing to loose.

On other hand, if players play more reckless with their characters, always entering combat as if it was SAFE, not using cover, not giving a second thought to out-of-combat solutions to some problems (which can mean to run away from some confrontations), well, they will most probably end up dead anyday soon, as the odds are staking against them.

So, I would argue that this system as it is is pretty darn good for players feel like taking RISKS with their characters, while at the same time encouraging to play SMART.

Just like the characters in the STAR WARS movies.

I would argue that in the real world, doing something risky means there is a good chance it won't work.

In movies, and hopefully RPGs based on those movies, doing something risky makes you awesome and brave and very rarely does it not work. Luke doesn't say 'This time we are going in full throttle!' and then proceed to fly his x-wing in to a wall because he is going too fast.

There has to be a bit of… movie odds in here. If you try to fly a ship through an asteroid field, you won't actually crash and die 3720 times out of 3721 times you try it.

As Terry Pratchett says, in stories if the odds of something happening are a million to one, it is going to work. Luckily, odds of a million to one happen nine times out of ten.

Man. He actually says 'we're going in, we're going in full throttle'. I used to be able to pretty much recite the films from memory. Must be getting old. Or it is just time to watch the film again!

Anyway, unless you are willing to pretend that the PCs actions are a lot more risky than they mechanically actually are, you are extremely unlikely to end up with a story that in any way resembles a Star Wars movie.