You could just have your team's Doctor make a Hard Medicine check and lose 0 sessions

Or you could have your players not fight at all and just have them pet puppies each session.

"If you can't take a bloody nose, Picard, you better crawl under your bed and hide." -- Q

Anyways, having all that said, let's not forget that critical injuries are always optional -- the GM never has to spend advantage to score crits against players unless he wants to. I'm not sure everyone appreciates what an elegant weapon that is. It means that players in the demesne of a narratively-minded GM have don't really need to worry about losing their hands, kneecaps and pancreases to a group of stormptrooper minions in session number one. But when you're facing down the Big Bad and death is on the line, are you really going to be crying about your beautiful face?

We'll even look at the numbers.

At character gen, for characteristics going from 3 to 4 is 40XP. Going from 2 to 3 is 30XP. So going from 2 to 4 is 70XP.

For this example, we'll assume the character is a Human Mechanic with 4 Int and put 2 free skills in Mechanics (career and specialization). 2 Yellow and 2 Green are nice for a Mechanics check.

Some bad crits later, and the Mechanic loses an Int. That's a 40XP lose and now he's rolling 2 Yellow and 1 Green.

So which is worse?

Losing 1 session while you retire this character and stat out a new character that will be on par with the rest of the party (as suggested before)

or

Losing 4 sessions worth of XP?

I see where you're coming from *mechanically*, but you're still off base. It's not a '40 XP lose', because you can get back to where you were *and better* cheaper than that. After spending only 35 XP to bump your Mechanics skill, you're rolling 3 Yellow and 2 green. And then things get even better when you get the cybernetics to give back that point of Intellect, at the cost of some credits or Obligation and a cool chunk of story.

As for your later question, the option isn't "lose 1 session and stat out a new character" vs. "lose 4 sessions of XP".

It can just as reasonably be phrased as:

"Utterly abandon a character and concept because they took a nasty hit"

vs.

"Play the concept through the nasty hit, and come out better on the other side."

But I suppose that is only true if you view your character as more than the sum of its mechanics. If a character concept is nothing more than a batch of numbers to you, let your GM know, and he'll be sure to never bother you with any permanent disabilities unless he wants you to drop the character like a hot brick.

The disconnect here seems to be one of priorities. If the numbers are more important than the character, then a permanent number hit is *bad*. If the character is more important than the numbers, then the permanent number hit is *interesting*.

"Hey, play my way or you are a whiny brat who doesn't know what roleplaying is and deserves to be mocked."

Do you guys have even a modicum of selfawareness? You are being giant douchebags.

Hell, I have no problem with the gruesome injury result, but if they do, they can change it. You aren't aribiters of TRUE ROLEPLAYING, someone else can roleplay their character just as well without wanting to have the chance of their mechanical ability permanently reduced.

"Hey, play my way or you are a whiny brat who doesn't know what roleplaying is and deserves to be mocked."

Do you guys have even a modicum of selfawareness? You are being giant douchebags.

Hell, I have no problem with the gruesome injury result, but if they do, they can change it. You aren't aribiters of TRUE ROLEPLAYING, someone else can roleplay their character just as well without wanting to have the chance of their mechanical ability permanently reduced.

I don't really see anyone being a ****** .Trying to show someone the intention behind the rules as written is not a bad thing.

"Hey, play my way or you are a whiny brat who doesn't know what roleplaying is and deserves to be mocked."

Do you guys have even a modicum of selfawareness? You are being giant douchebags.

Hell, I have no problem with the gruesome injury result, but if they do, they can change it. You aren't aribiters of TRUE ROLEPLAYING, someone else can roleplay their character just as well without wanting to have the chance of their mechanical ability permanently reduced.

I don't really see anyone being a ****** .Trying to show someone the intention behind the rules as written is not a bad thing.

Are we reading the same thread? You really don't see the "If you don't like this rule you aren't a true roleplayer, you just care about the numbers" going on in all these quotes:

It can just as reasonably be phrased as:

But I suppose that is only true if you view your character as more than the sum of its mechanics. If a character concept is nothing more than a batch of numbers to you, let your GM know, and he'll be sure to never bother you with any permanent disabilities unless he wants you to drop the character like a hot brick.

"If you can't take a bloody nose, Picard, you better crawl under your bed and hide." -- Q

What's next? Retire a character because they take damage?

For me a roleplaying game like this is not about min-maxing stats or acquiring loot or gaining XP but about playing out a fun, dramatic, Star Wars story with my friends.

-Snip-

Honestly if all you care about is just gaining XP and maxing out your stats so there's no challenge in the game I don't even understand why you're playing a game in the first place, much less a specifically "narrative" roleplaying game.

How exciting is a roleplaying game when there is no danger in its battles???

Or you could have your players not fight at all and just have them pet puppies each session.

For me a roleplaying game like this is not about min-maxing stats or acquiring loot or gaining XP but about playing out a fun, dramatic, Star Wars story with my friends.

....

Honestly if all you care about is just gaining XP and maxing out your stats so there's no challenge in the game I don't even understand why you're playing a game in the first place, much less a specifically "narrative" roleplaying game.

All your posts make good points, and I respect them. In fact, all the posts about losing limbs were quite enjoyable (who doesn't think of limb lose when they think of Star Wars. And yes, playing a down on their luck character can be fun if they can over come the odds. But there's an if there.

But XP does affect the fluff of what your character can do. This is why in level based systems groups don't always start at level 1, because starter characters can't always do what is cool and expected heroes. Would you join a gaming group that's already level 7, but the GM insists you start at level 1, when the ECL of enemies would be level 7? Playing the underdog is fun, isn't it? Think of the challenges you'll have to overcome! Let's be honest, this wouldn't happen, if you didn't die immediately, you'd be a hindrance to the group. (And have a GM horror story to share)

Let's say you want to play as the fastest gun this side of Nar Shadaa. You can narrate there is proof of this with Obligation: Bounty, you're wanted because you've killed so many because you're that good with a gun and Motivation: Fame, you just want everyone to know about it. Now you can't just roll 2 green die and argue with the GM that you should get first initiative every time because of your back story. You'll need the stats to back this up. That requires Cool/Presence and Vigilance/Will. (For this example, we'll ignore Agility under the phrasing of "fastest gun" not "most accurate"). That alone is still banking on luck to win, you'll have better odds, but yellows can still turn up all Advantages and Greens can still turn up blank. So, you invest in Talents like Rapid Reaction, Quick Draw and Quick Strike if you're hoping for damage when you can move so fast. These skills, characteristics and talents require XP. Incidentally, the Scoundrel can get all these at character creation. 3Pr, 3Will, 1free cool, 1 free vigil and all 3 talents for 80XP if you're playing a human (and this leaves you with 30XP to spare so you can up your skills more or get 3 agi or whatever). You now have legit claim mechanically to be your narrative fastest gun.

Now you're counter claiming that with the lose of these stats (remember, WILL and PR can't be cybernetic'ed back), you can still play a character that WANTS to be the fastest gun, or laments about being the fastest gun. This is true. But I'm going to get corny and throw a quote out:

"Do or do not, there is no try."

In real life, I can want to be a race car driver, I can try to be a race car driver; but I can assure you, no one will let me behind a professional wheel because everyone knows I'll just end up killing myself and likely many others, even if the track is only 2 left turns for 200 miles.

Star Wars is about playing All The Awesomes. I honestly don't see why wanting to play the loser is appealing and thus why a rule is in place to force you to play a loser. To draw another parallel (which may be lost on a few people), in the 90's football movie Rudy, if the movie played out the same; saw mill incident, failed acceptance, priest sponsor, tutor from awkward guy... and then Rudy didn't make the team because he can't run very fast or even catch a ball, would the movie have been just as good? Sure, he can train to get better, but you only go to college for so many years, We'll say he still never makes the team and graduates. Fin. End of movie, no triumph, ends depressingly because the only reason Rudy went to college was to play for The Fighting Irish. Would you enjoy that movie? Now yes, Empire Strikes Back ended on a down note, but there was still story to be told and new goals to be resolved. What's left for this Rudy that can't run or catch? Go back to the saw mill? Who wants to watch another 30 minutes of about a depressed college graduate who only went to college to play football?

And then things get even better when you get the cybernetics to give back that point of Intellect, at the cost of some credits or Obligation and a cool chunk of story.

I probably should have used Smuggler: Thief for Skulduggery instead of Technician: Mechanic, because the Int can be repaired by cybernetics, but Cunning can't. The Mechanic was the first that came to mind because it was the only one at the time I could think of that had Mechanics for both career and specialization free skills.

Here's the thing though where you're wrong: the add on of cybernetics only repair the lose, this doesn't make you better, this makes you like you were before. But the obligation and cool story? You could get obligation and cool story without the lose of a stat too, and you have to take one step back before you take one step forward.

And remember cybernetics only affect Brawn, Agility and Int. Cunning, Will and Presence can't be gotten back.

Everyone is entitled to play the game as they want and make house rules for rules they don't like. But people want their Star Wars stories to be heroic, they aren't going to spend 2 sessions herdings some nerfs between 4 immediately adjacent fields... especially when they fail because they can't succeed on a Charm(PR) roll.

(Edited to indent paragraphs, because that was too wall-o'-text even for me)

"Hey, play my way or you are a whiny brat who doesn't know what roleplaying is and deserves to be mocked."

Do you guys have even a modicum of selfawareness? You are being giant douchebags.

Hell, I have no problem with the gruesome injury result, but if they do, they can change it. You aren't aribiters of TRUE ROLEPLAYING, someone else can roleplay their character just as well without wanting to have the chance of their mechanical ability permanently reduced.

I don't really see anyone being a ****** .Trying to show someone the intention behind the rules as written is not a bad thing.

Are we reading the same thread? You really don't see the "If you don't like this rule you aren't a true roleplayer, you just care about the numbers" going on in all these quotes:

It can just as reasonably be phrased as:

But I suppose that is only true if you view your character as more than the sum of its mechanics. If a character concept is nothing more than a batch of numbers to you, let your GM know, and he'll be sure to never bother you with any permanent disabilities unless he wants you to drop the character like a hot brick.

I've always wondered about people who go through the trouble of quoting something, only to snip out the portion which most directly addresses the point they're trying to make. Especially while they're complaining about what an *** the 'other guy' is being.

What I was questioning was the assertion that there was, somehow, some form of irreparable damage to the ability to play the character just because they take a hit to a characteristic score. My position is that, no, there is no such irreparable damage. His position is that there is, to the point where throwing the character away and starting from scratch is the only viable option. Your position is that I'm a 'giant douchebag' for showing an alternative phrasing of the question (which you 'conveniently' chopped from your 'quote').

Frankly, you ought to take a look in the mirror before you start assigning motives to others. And, you happen to be off topic.

I've always wondered about people who go through the trouble of quoting something, only to snip out the portion which most directly addresses the point they're trying to make. Especially while they're complaining about what an *** the 'other guy' is being.

What I was questioning was the assertion that there was, somehow, some form of irreparable damage to the ability to play the character just because they take a hit to a characteristic score. My position is that, no, there is no such irreparable damage. His position is that there is, to the point where throwing the character away and starting from scratch is the only viable option. Your position is that I'm a 'giant douchebag' for showing an alternative phrasing of the question (which you 'conveniently' chopped from your 'quote').

Frankly, you ought to take a look in the mirror before you start assigning motives to others. And, you happen to be off topic.

I snipped it for brevity, not to change what you said.

Unless you are telling me you weren't really saying "If you don't want your character taking a permanent hit to a key characteristic, you only care about the numbers and don't care about roleplaying."

In which case, you really suck at getting your point across, because absolutely it looked like you were joining in on the mocking of anyone who doesn't like the rule.

You think its cool to play a character who is handicapped by an injury? Thats cool! You do that. But I think the outright mocking and bull surrounding how if anyone else doesn't feel the same way they are rollplayers not roleplayers is obnoxious BS.

And then things get even better when you get the cybernetics to give back that point of Intellect, at the cost of some credits or Obligation and a cool chunk of story.

I probably should have used Smuggler: Thief for Skulduggery instead of Technician: Mechanic, because the Int can be repaired by cybernetics, but Cunning can't. The Mechanic was the first that came to mind because it was the only one at the time I could think of that had Mechanics for both career and specialization free skills.

Here's the thing though where you're wrong: the add on of cybernetics only repair the lose, this doesn't make you better, this makes you like you were before. But the obligation and cool story? You could get obligation and cool story without the lose of a stat too, and you have to take one step back before you take one step forward.

And remember cybernetics only affect Brawn, Agility and Int. Cunning, Will and Presence can't be gotten back.

Everyone is entitled to play the game as they want and make house rules for rules they don't like. But people want their Star Wars stories to be heroic, they aren't going to spend 2 sessions herdings some nerfs between 4 immediately adjacent fields... especially when they fail because they can't succeed on a Charm(PR) roll.

(Edited to indent paragraphs, because that was too wall-o'-text even for me)

Changing the characteristic involve doesn't change the main point I was making about the mechanics, which was:

After spending only 35 XP to bump your Mechanics skill, you're rolling 3 Yellow and 1 green.*

where originally you were only rolling 2 Yellow & 2 Green. After just 15 XP, you're *almost* back on par at 3 Yellow.

The primary point is this:

Even a *permanent* characteristic hit is only a *temporary* setback in your character's ability to be particularly awesome with a skill.

* I spotted a typo in there, where I originally wrote '2 green'. That would take another 25 XP.

I've always wondered about people who go through the trouble of quoting something, only to snip out the portion which most directly addresses the point they're trying to make. Especially while they're complaining about what an *** the 'other guy' is being.

What I was questioning was the assertion that there was, somehow, some form of irreparable damage to the ability to play the character just because they take a hit to a characteristic score. My position is that, no, there is no such irreparable damage. His position is that there is, to the point where throwing the character away and starting from scratch is the only viable option. Your position is that I'm a 'giant douchebag' for showing an alternative phrasing of the question (which you 'conveniently' chopped from your 'quote').

Frankly, you ought to take a look in the mirror before you start assigning motives to others. And, you happen to be off topic.

I snipped it for brevity, not to change what you said.

Unless you are telling me you weren't really saying "If you don't want your character taking a permanent hit to a key characteristic, you only care about the numbers and don't care about roleplaying."

In which case, you really suck at getting your point across, because absolutely it looked like you were joining in on the mocking of anyone who doesn't like the rule.

You think its cool to play a character who is handicapped by an injury? Thats cool! You do that. But I think the outright mocking and bull surrounding how if anyone else doesn't feel the same way they are rollplayers not roleplayers is obnoxious BS.

Actually, yes. I do think that makes for a cool story. And, in fact, I *have* done that on numerous occasions throughout the years. Of course, the term I used was "interesting". The thing about "interesting" events is that they can be good, or they can be bad. Hey can even be good and *appear* bad, or be bad and *appear good. Or they can be any combination of the above. Either way, they make for a more *interesting* gaming experience.

But, still, *you* are the only one who is *mocking* anyone. And, if you want to put quotes around something and claim I said it, you ought to be darned sure that it's actually something I said. You seem to have a stick somewhere uncomfortable that you ought to remove, because it's coloring your perceptions of what is actually being said in this thread. You've jumped into a thread, and started accusing everyone of being giant douchebags because, you're reading some unknown bias into what we're writing. Why? I don't know. But lay the heck off, and stop disrupting the discussion.

But I think the outright mocking and bull surrounding how if anyone else doesn't feel the same way they are rollplayers not roleplayers is obnoxious BS.

It is obnoxious, and it's more common around here than I like. I recommend liberal use of the Ignore options the new forums added.

I've always wondered about people who go through the trouble of quoting something, only to snip out the portion which most directly addresses the point they're trying to make. Especially while they're complaining about what an *** the 'other guy' is being. What I was questioning was the assertion that there was, somehow, some form of irreparable damage to the ability to play the character just because they take a hit to a characteristic score. My position is that, no, there is no such irreparable damage. His position is that there is, to the point where throwing the character away and starting from scratch is the only viable option. Your position is that I'm a 'giant douchebag' for showing an alternative phrasing of the question (which you 'conveniently' chopped from your 'quote'). Frankly, you ought to take a look in the mirror before you start assigning motives to others. And, you happen to be off topic.

I snipped it for brevity, not to change what you said.Unless you are telling me you weren't really saying "If you don't want your character taking a permanent hit to a key characteristic, you only care about the numbers and don't care about roleplaying."In which case, you really suck at getting your point across, because absolutely it looked like you were joining in on the mocking of anyone who doesn't like the rule.You think its cool to play a character who is handicapped by an injury? Thats cool! You do that. But I think the outright mocking and bull surrounding how if anyone else doesn't feel the same way they are rollplayers not roleplayers is obnoxious BS.

I'd rather harmlesly and jockingly mock and be open about it. I think writing paragraph upon paragraph of technical mumbo jumbo and speaking of "losing levels" several times while trying to tell others why the official rule is wrong and basically missing the point of why such a rule was written asks for an answer. If a simple joke like "Or you could have your players not fight at all and just have them pet puppies each session" is equal to telling someone he/she is not a real roleplayer then I don't know what to tell you.

Is he/she a bad roleplayer? I don't know. Is he/she a roleplayer I would not like to play with? Yes, I think I can safely say that is the case.

We don't all play things the same way, but the way this rule was discussed here and the fact the player gave no sign of understanding the rule as written and put forth a videogame/monopoly reasoning as to why he felt it was wrong, I don't think the reactions were all that weird.

Nobody is trying to tell him/her not to play that way but the remarks that the rule was bad or counterproductive to the game were reacted upon.

I probably don't make for the best GM ever, far from it probably, so I would never tell anyone to play "my way ever."

In my case the "mocking" was meant in a playful manner and not as disrespect. I hope that sets it straight a bit...

I just think mocking in general is a terrible idea. I thought the idea of forums was to share ideas, not to shame anyone who doesn't see things the same into never speaking. And no one here can read "tone", no one can tell who is joking or not.

Its especially bad when it turns into the piling on crap that happened here where nearly a whole page goes by with almost nothing but posters piping in with "ha, go pet puppies then".

And anyway, I can turn it around just as well: If you don't care about the mechanical hit, why is it necessary to happen in order roleplay a grevious injury?

Star Wars is about playing All The Awesomes. I honestly don't see why wanting to play the loser is appealing and thus why a rule is in place to force you to play a loser

You see, now I am scared to really answer this at the risk of being called a douchebag again. But how is he/her telling us what "star wars is about" and being (in my eyes) completely wrong about it, any different then what others (including the creators of the game we are discussing here) are telling him the game should be about?

Nobody is "shaming" anyone, jeez exaggerate much?

no one can tell who is joking or not.

Well, the puppy one as well as the picard quote were pretty obvious to be honest.

Its especially bad when it turns into the piling on crap that happened here where nearly a whole page goes by with almost nothing but posters piping in with "ha, go pet puppies then

And anyway, I can turn it around just as well: If you don't care about the mechanical hit, why is it necessary to happen in order roleplay a grevious injury?

So he disagrees with you on what Star Wars is. So what? He isn't telling you what to think Star Wars is. He isn't telling you if you think differently then you might as well go play a video game, that you only care about mechanics and don't care about roleplaying.

"I honestly don't see why wanting to play the loser is appealing and thus why a rule is in place to force you to play a loser" <===This encourages discussion, as it gives you an option to respond with why you would want to do this. He isn't saying you are WRONG for wanting to play that, he is saying he doesn't GET it. He isn't insulting anyone who does want to, he is claiming a nonunderstanding.

On the other side "The only way it makes sense is if you don't care about roleplaying" is shutting down discussion. Its saying you already know why they are doing it, assigning motives, and very insulting ones at that.

Do you not see a difference?

Yeah, I see a difference.

A difference between what I have been saying and what you have attributed to me saying.

So he disagrees with you on what Star Wars is. So what? He isn't telling you what to think Star Wars is. He isn't telling you if you think differently then you might as well go play a video game, that you only care about mechanics and don't care about roleplaying

Literally no one did this.

Several times in this thread people have said the only reason you would want to drop a character with a gruesome injury is if you only care about the numbers and not the "roleplaying".

If you don't see that, then you are being willfully blind.

Several times in this thread people have said the only reason you would want to drop a character with a gruesome injury is if you only care about the numbers and not the "roleplaying".If you don't see that, then you are being willfully blind.

See, you are not above making assumptions here. I just went through the thread and read the replies and no one did what you accused them off.

This is what blows me away about that whole post, and why in my opinion this is a completely different style of play than I'm used to with a role playing game like this.

For me a roleplaying game like this is not about min-maxing stats or acquiring loot or gaining XP but about playing out a fun, dramatic, Star Wars story with my friends.

Do you really think this doesn't heavily imply: If you care about a characteristic hit, you are playing a game about minmaxing stats and acquiring loot and gaining xp, not about playing out fun, dramatic, Star Wars stories with your friends.

"It heavily implies"?

Is this all that is left of:

Several times in this thread people have said the only reason you would want to drop a character with a gruesome injury is if you only care about the numbers and not the "roleplaying".

If you don't see that, then you are being willfully blind.

And again you seem to think everyone is saying that if people don't care about a charasterics hit they are having bad-fun. No one is though. People are raising objections over the motivations behind this. Nothing more, nothing less.

its simple, a player can choose to flip a destiny and cause an event to unfold in his favor if it sounds plausabile, such as getting his critical injury treated successfully and fliping a destiny to restore his attributes. Its within the scope of destiny usage and a GM would be very terrible if he didn't let you flip a destiny to alter the event for a better outcome. All you'd have to say would be "i'm flipping a destiny, revealing that the Doctor was able to successfully repair the critical injury and even managed to repair the extreme debilitating damage thus restoring full capacity to the injured limb"

I often find that destiny gets ignored on how powerful of an effect it can have on games, such as owning a utility belt but not carry the tool kit, but later flipping the destiny to have remembered to bring it anyway.

or flipping a destiny to know the right language

or flipping the destiny to have a critical wound seem not as terrible as thought.

or a GM flipping a destiny to keep his players from their goal or when a player gets a despair and has to use his reloads, the GM can flip and say "you realize in the confusion that it fell off your belt" and thus keep you from reloading the blaster.

Destiny flips are both a way for GM and Players to safety net themselves if something doesn't go right.

of course players often find themselves without destiny left in the pool, but eventually it will return and eventually a player can flip one and possible restore his lost attribute.

The main issue is that a GM and his players should be able to work things out, the game is supposed to be fun and yet the game is also supposed to be played by the GM's set guideline. No GM should dismiss his players and their issues, as long as a player is requesting an advantage that others can't recieve a GM should be willing to grant his Destiny flip.

My personal opinion is that getting a gruesome injury, alone, is not a valid reason to stop playing a character. If I had a player say they want to make a new character, fine. If they do, I will ask why. If they aren't happy with something i've done I want to know.

It could be they made a character that they don't like. I think we've all done this. Maybe they want to try something new. But if all they say is my character is useless because of that, I feel there is a different problem.

Sometimes character growth can only be accomplished through hardship.

In response to the original posting, yes as written, the loss of characteristic would be permanent. This, as with everything else in every game ever invented, is at the discretion of your group, so use it or don't, whatever the group decides that fits their play style.

My personal take on the bulk of the original ... discussion ... is that some are of the opinion that the reduction of a characteristic could/would result in a negative playing environment for some players and/or impose a disproportionately large mechanical penalty upon them. Others are of the opinion that the experience could/would/should be viewed as a positive playing experience and/or that the percieved mechanical penalty isn't as disproportionately large as the first group is percieving it to be.

As with so many things in this community, neither side is wrong in reference to the above opinions nor are they completely right .

The implications of this specific result would need to be discussed with your players on a table by table basis. It will work for some groups and not for others. Talk to your players and ask what works best for them.

As for the rest, well ... I personally try to phrase my responses in as professional a manner as possible, in an effort to avoid percieved insults/attacks against someone's character. I would suggest we all attempt to do the same in an effort to avoid unnecessary conflict here.