One thing I've noticed is that the games so far put a large focus on the pc's being the good guys. Sure the Edge is inhabited by scoundrels and smugglers but reading the book it pretty much gives me the Han Solo feel. Age of Rebellion is pretty much telling us straight out the gate the fight is taken to the Empire, making pretty clear the PC's will be the good guys again. This is not something I expect will change for book 3 either.

FFG have shown with their 40k series that they don't mind putting out books for people wanting to play the bad guys. And after visiting Star Wars Celebration in Germany 2 weeks ago and seeing so many of the 501st walk around in Storm trooper armor I would think it only a matter of time until we see a 4th book in the series allowing for Imperial play.

Any thoughts?

Um, aside from fluff & flavor text I don't see any difficulties in playing a villain in EotE. Even in AoR, I presume the basic careers, skills, and talents would work just fine in creating a dark chronicle. Just rename a few things, and draw from some Imperial information to fill out the gaps. There aren't any mechanics that rely on the characters being "good guys". Even the light/dark side tokens are just player/gm with a bit of narrative fluff. Switch them around if you play a group of villains.

The really difficult part is to create a coherent chronicle that keeps villain player characters together. With obligation that is lessened.

I guess it all boils down to this question. What is missing in the rules that you feel need to be there?

Wow, you just took it and totally ran the complete opposite direction I was going in.

I am not "missing" anything from the rules, I don't see "any difficulties in playing a villain", I was talking about a book on Imperial play...

The fluff and flavor text however show a clear aim in design towards good guy players.

It would be quite easy to create a coherrent chronicle for Imperials in my opinion, you could use a duty system for them sticking together as well.

It would be a nice addition as a splat book for AoR, although the EotE does cover it pretty well. Once the more military stuff pops out in AoR, I am not sure how needed a separate book would be.

I am sure I would still buy it though. My wife keeps hounding me for another villain campaign.

In Star Wars Galaxies my favorite thing was to roleplay as a member of a criminal gang on Tatooine. Basically like being a character in The Godfather or Goodfellas or something. We and our guild crafted stories where we were the 'main characters' of our stories, but we definitely weren't good guys.

I'm gearing up to start an EOTE campaign where I'm GMing, so it will be more up to my players whether they want to be "scoundrels with a heart of gold" like Han Solo or Mal Reynolds, or devious criminals like Michael Corleone, but either one would be great!

In Star Wars Galaxies my favorite thing was to roleplay as a member of a criminal gang on Tatooine. Basically like being a character in The Godfather or Goodfellas or something. We and our guild crafted stories where we were the 'main characters' of our stories, but we definitely weren't good guys.

I'm gearing up to start an EOTE campaign where I'm GMing, so it will be more up to my players whether they want to be "scoundrels with a heart of gold" like Han Solo or Mal Reynolds, or devious criminals like Michael Corleone, but either one would be great!

Yeah, I am not sure where my players are going to fall on that scale yet. Several hate the empire, but that doesn't mean much.

Well, Star Wars in general is about the good guys, so it stands to reason that's where a lot of the focus is going to be.

Granted, myself and a small minority of others think that maybe EotE put a bit too much emphasis on the "self-serving scoundrels" angle, particularly in the adventure material published to date, but that's ultimately a matter of opinion.

If you really do want to run a "bad guys" campaign, it's quite easy to do with EotE already, as it's already slanted towards the 'shady' side of the galaxy, with the PCs operating on the Fringe, not unlike the crew of the Serenity .

Wow, you just took it and totally ran the complete opposite direction I was going in.

I am not "missing" anything from the rules, I don't see "any difficulties in playing a villain", I was talking about a book on Imperial play...

The fluff and flavor text however show a clear aim in design towards good guy players.

It would be quite easy to create a coherrent chronicle for Imperials in my opinion, you could use a duty system for them sticking together as well.

Okay, what would be in this Imperial supplement that you don't think will be in the core books?

It's Star Wars, after all, and the PCs are supposed to be (in Zaeed Masani's words,) "Big goddamn heroes". Some enlightened self-interest is fine, and it's not such a bad thing if they're a little dirty around the edges, but the Star Wars universe has a pretty black-and-white morality scale. While a GM can of course make the setting as dystopian as he (and his players) feel like, I personally prefer my Star Wars campaign to be about (mostly) good guys.

Wow, you just took it and totally ran the complete opposite direction I was going in.

I am not "missing" anything from the rules, I don't see "any difficulties in playing a villain", I was talking about a book on Imperial play...

The fluff and flavor text however show a clear aim in design towards good guy players.

It would be quite easy to create a coherrent chronicle for Imperials in my opinion, you could use a duty system for them sticking together as well.

Okay, what would be in this Imperial supplement that you don't think will be in the core books?

I think he wants more details of the organizational structures.

I actually don't see where the assumption that the players are good guys. If anything the rules for Obligation point at them to be bad guys. Check Table 9-3 on page 308. It starts with referring to them as any random type of mercenary but by the end even corrupt politicians won't deal with them, they're considered legendary in the underworld and can't go into legit places to buy weapons; they can ONLY deal with the black market.

Look at the Galaxy and Organizations chapter found in EotE. If we get stuff that has HALF that amount of new info in AoR, you'll have more than enough.

Funny how half of the people here are claiming that stuff "is there already" while the other half claim that "it doesn't fit the narrative"

Also, not once did I say me or my players are wanting to play imperials.

Wow, you just took it and totally ran the complete opposite direction I was going in.

I am not "missing" anything from the rules, I don't see "any difficulties in playing a villain", I was talking about a book on Imperial play...

The fluff and flavor text however show a clear aim in design towards good guy players.

It would be quite easy to create a coherrent chronicle for Imperials in my opinion, you could use a duty system for them sticking together as well.

Okay, what would be in this Imperial supplement that you don't think will be in the core books?

I think he wants more details of the organizational structures.

Again, I am not looking for such a thing but I would be surprised if there won't be a book catering to such a large market.

However, besides organizational structures there would need to be new classes, new vehicles, new armor, new motivations, etc.

One of my two groups migrated into becoming senior members of Sinasu's organization...

The other group made it into the rebellion.

In both cases, it was grounds to hang up the campaign.

It's all too easy for a party to slide into being archvillains...

... obligation, however, discourages becoming too dark. As the bounties pile up, suddenly, it gets too much, and no one can spend any XP... at least, not until they lose one of the party... until, finally, one one remains... and eventually, even they will be hunted to the point they can't spend XP.

Obligation, however, discourages becoming too dark. As the bounties pile up, suddenly, it gets too much, and no one can spend any XP... at least, not until they lose one of the party... until, finally, one one remains... and eventually, even they will be hunted to the point they can't spend XP.

Indeed,one of the reasons I suggested the book focusses on players being "good guys."

I dont know if it's true anymore, but I had a friend who worked at WEG and he told me once that one of two edicts handed down by Lucasfilm was how to handle the force (the umbrella control, sense and alter instead of doing dice for individual powers) and "Tho shalt not allow them to play bad guys", hence the whole "Turn to the dark side" game mechanic for doing bad things.

Does this hold true today? No idea - but that might be a reason why we've got nothing but "mercenaries with a heart of gold" and Slightly Gray characters here.

I dont know if it's true anymore, but I had a friend who worked at WEG and he told me once that one of two edicts handed down by Lucasfilm was how to handle the force (the umbrella control, sense and alter instead of doing dice for individual powers) and "Tho shalt not allow them to play bad guys", hence the whole "Turn to the dark side" game mechanic for doing bad things.

Does this hold true today? No idea - but that might be a reason why we've got nothing but "mercenaries with a heart of gold" and Slightly Gray characters here.

It would seem a reasonable explanation...

I dont know if it's true anymore, but I had a friend who worked at WEG and he told me once that one of two edicts handed down by Lucasfilm was how to handle the force (the umbrella control, sense and alter instead of doing dice for individual powers) and "Tho shalt not allow them to play bad guys", hence the whole "Turn to the dark side" game mechanic for doing bad things.

Does this hold true today? No idea - but that might be a reason why we've got nothing but "mercenaries with a heart of gold" and Slightly Gray characters here.

All through the D20 phases of SWRPGs we had playable bad guys. From nasty assassins to Sith and Other Dark Side Force Users (ODSFUs).

Wow, you just took it and totally ran the complete opposite direction I was going in.

I am not "missing" anything from the rules, I don't see "any difficulties in playing a villain", I was talking about a book on Imperial play...

The fluff and flavor text however show a clear aim in design towards good guy players.

It would be quite easy to create a coherrent chronicle for Imperials in my opinion, you could use a duty system for them sticking together as well.

Okay, what would be in this Imperial supplement that you don't think will be in the core books?

I think he wants more details of the organizational structures.

Again, I am not looking for such a thing but I would be surprised if there won't be a book catering to such a large market.

However, besides organizational structures there would need to be new classes, new vehicles, new armor, new motivations, etc.

I expect that they will include far more Imperial vehicles with AoR. Classes will likely be able to be fluffed for rebels, but easily swapped for Imperials. Trooper Armor (laminate) is already in EotE. And simply swap the motivation of "...against the empire" to "...against the rebels".

But I am really confused now. Between the title, and how I read the original post it sounded like you were curious about our thoughts on an Imperial/ "Bad guys" campaign. What were you really asking or curious about?

I dont know if it's true anymore, but I had a friend who worked at WEG and he told me once that one of two edicts handed down by Lucasfilm was how to handle the force (the umbrella control, sense and alter instead of doing dice for individual powers) and "Tho shalt not allow them to play bad guys", hence the whole "Turn to the dark side" game mechanic for doing bad things.

Does this hold true today? No idea - but that might be a reason why we've got nothing but "mercenaries with a heart of gold" and Slightly Gray characters here.

While that makes sense, there really is nothing to stop anyone from playing a villain in EotE. As some previous posters mentioned, Obligation actually pulls you to the dark side as it grows numerically. Perhaps they will be a bit more "good-guy"-esque in AoR?

AOR may have a Imperial suppliment book that talk about using AOR info for Imperial use, drawing out more about Imperial play, and maybe even an Imperial adventure, but that would be about it. No way there's going to be a 4th Imp focused core book.

It's obvious the core books are going to lean towards good. It's the easiest narrative to sell, and play. If you want to attract new players, you have to give them a scenario they can quickly adapt to. Being the good guys in Star Wars takes little to no thought as we've all seen the movies.

Playing a bad guy is a little more difficult, and unsavory for a company to persue.

Well EotE clearly leans towards good just not the shining beacon of good. I know some readers aren't picking that up, but that's ok too

first as mentioned. Obligation tends to limit how bad you can be.

Much of the writing leans towards neutral, selfish and good motivated. there is much emphasis that various activities are helpful to the galaxy. Smuggling supplies, supplying the rebels, beating up other bad guys.

the scenario prizes you more for being good. Some of the triggers of events and scripts are aimed for good characters.
Help J9 and R4. furthers the plot
Help Zukata, required to further the plot
beating Daro triggers a crowd thank you
R4 tries to convice that it's the right thing to do to go after Bandin
You can talk the Rodian bounty hunter out of working with Bandin(sorry for spoilers)
Only the 10k bounty from the Imperials is a greed path. And that's greed not bad.

When my troupe and me talked I suggested a handful of campaign ideas that I was into.

Speeder Bike team(wasn't taken seriously )

Musical Band(wasn't taken seriously )
Hutt Enforces( which everyone liked the ideas)

After talking to the group later about the other too. They thought I was joking sigh. I really wanted to do a SpeederBike team

So now they are badguys, however, it should be noted that "badguy" doesn't mean villain or evil. They work on the "wrong side of the tracks". They aren't random murders.

I suspect there will be enough information to play Imperials in the next book. It's loose, but you could probably play Imperials now as investigating the fringe trouble makers

You know that's an interesting thought that LA said certain requirements, but I get the feeling that the note probably wasn't from LA and just discussion and final decision around the designers. Bill Slavicsek was the Force Rules designer and did some of the WEG books. He was also the lead designer for Star Wars under WotC. Likey when he came up with the rules a memo went out to make the design change. It also explains why the Sense/Control/Alter rules continued with SWD20, but didn't make it into FFG Star Wars. because he is not part of the design team. There is an article he wrote about his involvement of SW back in WEG days. It's amazing to note he was one of the original guys who was involved in the entire EU and fleshing out the SW universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Slavicsek

However, I can believe that LA did say that the game should be about the good guys, and don't play the bad guys.

Find a copy of WEG's Imperial Sourcebook. Lots of good information in there. The vehicles and so forth would need conversion work to the FFG system, but that shouldn't be too hard.

Then you'd need to develop some new talents for an Imperial campaign. Stuff like Avoid Force Choke, various levels of Sycophant, and Scourge of Jawas.

Plus, it isn't like the FFG Police will show up at your door and arrest you if your players play murderers, psychopaths, or Sith (whats the difference, amiright?) Sometimes that's just what players wants to do.