For Saga I simply ruled the PCs were helpless, meaning they could be coup de grace'd.

For this I really like the idea of a Coercion check, but this brings up the controversy of forcing the PCs to surrender via a skill check...

I don't think I'd ever force the PCs to surrender via a skill check, but I do like the idea of giving them fear setbacks based on failures to a Coercion roll.

That seems like a great way to run it really, as well as the other way around (i.e. you've got a Nemesis you don't want surrendering on a simple skill check either). If it causes penalties, players will still feel the skill was useful.

PC surrender and similar subjects all revolve around one basic roleplaying problem, you are taking de facto control of a player's character away from them. Since that's ALL they have in the game, a player is going to be rightly nervous about the possibility of the GM taking it away. If it's the equivalent of "lose a turn" in a standard game (i.e. something brief that won't perma-screw the player), most folks can live with it, but you need to make it clear they will get some control back soon-ish or they're gonna see themselves just sitting at the table doing nothing while the GM runs a railroad.

The "perma-screw" thing is important also; one reason surrender is unpopular is PCs are usually facing villains, and surrendering to somebody who will cheerfully torture/murder you anyway is quite probably stupider than fighting against horrible odds, so guess which option PCs take more often? You have to make it clear surrender is a possibility for survival/another chance later, or at least make sure PCs do get a chance to resist harm (i.e. escape from their cells before being fed to a rancor, etc.). If they roll their own dice, a good player can accept the consequences of failure because it's their failure; hurt them without them having any chance to stop it and they will never trust you again. But always treat surrender carefully, loss of control of a character always tap dances on the heart of the GM/player "contract", and it's easy to screw up and railroad. Communication is key!

Aye, it's easy for a player to think "it's no big deal. This guy is just a character sheet, I can roll up another". Obviously in real life you wouldn't want to die or be captured and tortured, but in a game there's much much less to lose.

On the other hand, a sense of investment in a character can raise a player's hackles in a situation in which the player feels that the GM rather than the rules or the dice are trying to take away control of that character.

The scenario happens in almost every kind of fiction: A bad guy gets the drop on the heroes by pointing a gun at them.

I'm not sure off hand how well Edge of the Empire RAW supports that sort of scenario. Mechanically getting the jump on someone really only affects which skill the parties to a fight roll for initiative, and if even on PC beats the NPC on the initiative check, whichever PC is in

the best position to derail the stick up gets to go first and knows he is going to get two maneuvers and an action before the NPC could pull the trigger. There is no "surprise round."

The scenario happens in almost every kind of fiction: A bad guy gets the drop on the heroes by pointing a gun at them.

I'm not sure off hand how well Edge of the Empire RAW supports that sort of scenario. Mechanically getting the jump on someone really only affects which skill the parties to a fight roll for initiative, and if even on PC beats the NPC on the initiative check, whichever PC is in

the best position to derail the stick up gets to go first and knows he is going to get two maneuvers and an action before the NPC could pull the trigger. There is no "surprise round."

There certainly could be, though, through rolling advantages or Triumphs on Initiative, or just the say-so of the GM if the situation warrants it.

Especially in a "narrative" system like this, the nature of the story and the drama of the events taking place count for much more than just the basic statistical rolls of the dice.

There certainly could be, though, through rolling advantages or Triumphs on Initiative, or just the say-so of the GM if the situation warrants it.

Yeah, but that's not RAW. Advantages in Initiative checks are already "accounted for" as tie-breakers. As for Triumph, by RAW it just counts as a success, though I guess it might also provide a boost die or whatever as usual.

To some degree I think that getting rid of the surprise rounds was a goal of the design,not a bug that snuck in, though I like the suggestion I heard on Order 66 that a Triumph on an Initiative roll allow a free maneuver before the combat begins. Granting an entire round's worth of actions for a Triumph may be a bit much, but one might house rule the initiative system to count Triumphs, then Success, then Advantage, which wouldn't give an extra round's worth of actions, but would often ensure the Triumphant character goes first.

Especially in a "narrative" system like this, the nature of the story and the drama of the events taking place count for much more than just the basic statistical rolls of the dice.

That's not an unreasonable perspective, but to my mind the degree to which narrative effect is "baked into" the dice rolls undercuts it a bit. But I'm a bit rules-mined, so I would probably think that.

In the case where someone has the drop on the PCs I wouldn't have an issue with having them automatically win the initiative or give them boost dice.

In Long Arm of the Hutt there is sort of a surprise round where the bounty hunters disable the speeder before combat started (though given the mutters of bullsh!t I wouldn't do that too often

In the case where someone has the drop on the PCs I wouldn't have an issue with having them automatically win the initiative or give them boost dice.

Boost dice seems like a pretty reasonable solution to me.

I've thought of this, too, but in the context of creating a foot chase scene. I'm having trouble coming up with an incentive for players to actually run from conflict.

Even if 3 squads of stormies show up, the players will be more inclined to stand and fight. I could just make a scene with infiitely respawning guys until they get the hint...problem is, they wouldn't take the hint and they'd keep fighting.

I'd have to come up with a foe dangerous enough to get them to run (thereby triggering an interesting/exciting chase scene), but players always assume encounters are designed for them to fight their way out of, unless it's obviously overwhelming odds, which is hard to portray without sheer numbers.

This is a tough problem and I've run into it as both a player and GM countless times. The best solution I've found is that at the very beginning of play, before you even make characters or start an adventure or campaign is to discuss what I call The Monologue & Cut Scene Rule:There will at times during an adventure/campaign that the PCs will encounter a situation where the GM will take complete control of the scene to set up or transition the PCs into the next scene or to give their nemesis a free pass on any opposing action to give a monologue. The deal is that this will happen infrequently, that the GM will not force the PCs to do something out of character, and the PCs will get something in return. In EotE for a set up/transition I'd likely go with giving the PCs experience they can spend immediately, or at least soon after the scene, and probably a free Boost Die on an action after a monologue.

This works pretty well for me and mine.

That's a good idea, FuriousGreg!

I like the idea of entering into a contract with the players that sometimes things will happen for the sake of the narrative--you can trust that I'm not going to just kill your characters or steal all your stuff or whatever, it's all toward the end of providing a tense, dramatic adventure--but sometimes that means things won't happen strictly by die rolls.

I've thought of this, too, but in the context of creating a foot chase scene. I'm having trouble coming up with an incentive for players to actually run from conflict.

Even if 3 squads of stormies show up, the players will be more inclined to stand and fight. I could just make a scene with infiitely respawning guys until they get the hint...problem is, they wouldn't take the hint and they'd keep fighting.

I'd have to come up with a foe dangerous enough to get them to run (thereby triggering an interesting/exciting chase scene), but players always assume encounters are designed for them to fight their way out of, unless it's obviously overwhelming odds, which is hard to portray without sheer numbers.

I just ran the Beginners Game a couple of weeks ago, and I made a point of mentioning to the players that in EOTE, unlike in "A New Hope", Stormtroopers are elite forces and dangerous.

Most of the characters ran when they encountered 2 Stormtrooper groups, with Oskara and Lowhrick covering them as they left. It was a fun fight and the fighting characters took a good bit of damage (and dished it out, too) before fleeing.

But I was happy to see they did take on board the advice about running!

I've thought of this, too, but in the context of creating a foot chase scene. I'm having trouble coming up with an incentive for players to actually run from conflict.

Even if 3 squads of stormies show up, the players will be more inclined to stand and fight. I could just make a scene with infiitely respawning guys until they get the hint...problem is, they wouldn't take the hint and they'd keep fighting.

I'd have to come up with a foe dangerous enough to get them to run (thereby triggering an interesting/exciting chase scene), but players always assume encounters are designed for them to fight their way out of, unless it's obviously overwhelming odds, which is hard to portray without sheer numbers.

I just ran the Beginners Game a couple of weeks ago, and I made a point of mentioning to the players that in EOTE, unlike in "A New Hope", Stormtroopers are elite forces and dangerous.

Most of the characters ran when they encountered 2 Stormtrooper groups, with Oskara and Lowhrick covering them as they left. It was a fun fight and the fighting characters took a good bit of damage (and dished it out, too) before fleeing.

But I was happy to see they did take on board the advice about running!

Maybe I just need to flat out tell them that's okay to run from a fight from time to time.

Capturing PC's is definitely really really hard. The lengths they will go to avoid capture can be really frustrating, but at times humorous. Last weekend one of my characters pretty much trashed their freighter trying to escape. He ripped off 2 landing gears, destroyed nearly every random extruding bit, crushed the lower turret, shattered the cockpit glass, destroyed the nav computer, and crashed into a swamp, to avoid capture. I still got them, but REALLY had to stack the deck.

If a badguy has a gun physically pressed into the back of your character, I don't care what the rules say, they will have the advantage. If the character tries to react, they will have a lot of setback dice, and if the shot hits it will be pretty much an automatic crit, and at the very least max damage for the weapon. If it's old Grandma Edna who has the gun to her, I'll warn the PC's that if she's shot, she dies. I try to be fair, I'll warn them ahead of time that Grandma is fragile and can't take even one shot, but sometimes the mechanics need to take a back seat.

Double Post

Don't forget opposed rolls. The book specifically mentions using an opposed cool check for two players wanting to have a duel, Mexican standoff style. In the case where an NPC already has his gone drawn on a PC, you could do an opposed check, PC vigilance vs NPC's cool. Winner gets the first shot off.

Maybe I just need to flat out tell them that's okay to run from a fight from time to time.

Pre EotE I've had to reinforced this with actual capture. The players were inclined to fight, and I warned they might be in over their heads, and they all looked at each other and said "naw, we go for it". That's fine. I proceeded to bring everyone's HP to zero, the only thing I changed was hand-waving the countdown-to-death. Their nemesis wanted them alive, because after all you can't torture a dead enemy. The next game was the prison break. They got most of their stuff back, but were late in accomplishing their mission for their benefactor, leading to other plot complications which they could have avoided if they ran.

In EotE I'd probably let them make a Leadership or Perception roll to better gauge what they're up against. At least they know now that if they succeed at such a roll, and the opposition does indeed look overwhelming but they stick around anyway, that I'll have no compunction against capturing them and taking some of their stuff.

Economics works too. At 500 credit a hull point, getting damaged in a dogfight is something to be avoided so long as you make sure they aren't swimming in money.

Maybe I just need to flat out tell them that's okay to run from a fight from time to time.

Pre EotE I've had to reinforced this with actual capture. The players were inclined to fight, and I warned they might be in over their heads, and they all looked at each other and said "naw, we go for it". That's fine. I proceeded to bring everyone's HP to zero, the only thing I changed was hand-waving the countdown-to-death. Their nemesis wanted them alive, because after all you can't torture a dead enemy. The next game was the prison break. They got most of their stuff back, but were late in accomplishing their mission for their benefactor, leading to other plot complications which they could have avoided if they ran.

The only thing I have an issue with and I try and avoid, even to the point of not playing a scene and having to re-jig an adventure, is not rewarding players for playing smart (or their dumb luck). I've had GMs that when confronted with a situation where the PCs succeed when for the story they need to fail they "cheat" by adding more enemies or fudging rolls, or the dreaded... GM Fiat. It is the most, by a large margin, annoying thing that can happen in a game.

Never make a roll, or have a combat, that you can't live with the results.

One sided encounters where the PCs are given a choice to fight and cannot win are almost never fun.

Always reward the players for making good choices.

It's situations like these that led me to come up with The Monologue & Cut Scene Rule, to avoid having to force a result from an encounter. In a situation, for example, where the PCs have to be captured to get to the next scene either "cut scene" it, figure out another way to get the PCs the information (maybe capture an NPC a character has an Obligation), or if you do play it out and the PCs succeed where they should have failed skip that part and figure out another way to get the PCs to the next bit.

The only thing I have an issue with and I try and avoid, even to the point of not playing a scene and having to re-jig an adventure, is not rewarding players for playing smart (or their dumb luck). I've had GMs that when confronted with a situation where the PCs succeed when for the story they need to fail they "cheat" by adding more enemies or fudging rolls, or the dreaded... GM Fiat. It is the most, by a large margin, annoying thing that can happen in a game.

Never make a roll, or have a combat, that you can't live with the results.

One sided encounters where the PCs are given a choice to fight and cannot win are almost never fun.

Always reward the players for making good choices.

I agree. In the case I mentioned, they had their suite of choices, and if by some miracle they had put down their attackers I'd have rolled with it. Most of my games end up only adhering about 10% to my original plan anyway, this wouldn't be any different.

Capturing PC's is definitely really really hard. The lengths they will go to avoid capture can be really frustrating, but at times humorous. Last weekend one of my characters pretty much trashed their freighter trying to escape. He ripped off 2 landing gears, destroyed nearly every random extruding bit, crushed the lower turret, shattered the cockpit glass, destroyed the nav computer, and crashed into a swamp, to avoid capture. I still got them, but REALLY had to stack the deck.

Although admittedly most of that rampage of destruction was brought on by a complete lack of actual piloting dice and/or skill at flying and a series of really horrible rolls and NOT by actual choice or design..Well, aside from shooting the nav computer. That one was on purpose.

I've found that capturing players is FAR easier in this game than in many others. A heavy dosing of blasters set on stun can lead to a capture of the entire group remarkably quickly. In fact, the stun setting is often more effective at dropping characters than the more lethal option as WT tends to get higher than ST and players will often risk causing Strain to themselves for extra maneuvers and use of certain Talents. Add to that the fact that Stimpacks only heal Wounds,- NOT Strain - and Stun Setting becomes really attractive.

I've found that capturing players is FAR easier in this game than in many others. A heavy dosing of blasters set on stun can lead to a capture of the entire group remarkably quickly. In fact, the stun setting is often more effective at dropping characters than the more lethal option as WT tends to get higher than ST and players will often risk causing Strain to themselves for extra maneuvers and use of certain Talents. Add to that the fact that Stimpacks only heal Wounds,- NOT Strain - and Stun Setting becomes really attractive.

Great point!

"There's one, set for stun!"

The scenario happens in almost every kind of fiction: A bad guy gets the drop on the heroes by pointing a gun at them.

In most fiction (and I daresay in real life), unless the hero is literally invulnerable to weapons (like Superman, Iron Man, or Vader in Empire), the heroes actually pause and act with caution because they know they could be seriously hurt or killed by somebody pointing at gun at them.

I'm reading the beginning of "Heir to the Empire", and some thugs get the drop on Luke using a weapon he's not familiar with. He doesn't want to fight, because he's a Jedi, but he acts with caution, instead of just saying "Oh I know my character has enough wound threshold to take at least one shot so I'll just attack them".

I feel like in RPGs, the player character knows how much wound threshold they have, and probably has a good idea of how much damage a blaster pistol might do.

In your experience, do players respond realistically or do they just take the hit and start shooting?

I'm thinking in a case like that I might give the bad guy who has the drop on them several boost dice to represent this advantage, or even an extra shot before the combat starts, because I'd like the characters to behave as though they are real people who could be mortally wounded rather than characters with a set number of hit points.

Thoughts?

Yes, many, thank you for asking, in no particular order:

1. RAW is only for things that can not be settled just by talking about them around the table (usually a contest of some sort, a race, a battle). If you can settle an issue just by talking about it, you actually don't need to consult the RAW. This is true in most every RPG.

2. This trope is averted many times (becomming its own trope) where the hero just snatches the weapon away from the bad guy (maybe he's not really bad, or just incompetent.) Are you open to this? If so, let it play out. Otherwise, the bad guy gets the shot and does a lot of damage (surprise!). There are actually many outcomes in fiction for the "hand ups!" routine.

3. If at all possible, save this trope for the real antagonist (likely, a Nemeisis in EotE) and threaten a valued NPC. If the PC's think they've saved the princess, then have the antagonist step out from the shadows and point the weapon at her, instead. Extra evil for threatening the helpless, and less friction from the players. Players are less likely to feel that NPCs are as invulnerable as their own characters.

4. This trope works on Luke because he's a farmboy jedi with a heart of gold. The trope highlights this. Is the same true of your PCs? If not don't use this trope unless you want to avert it by showing what BMF's your PC's are. I've seen this complaint many times -- GM wants to use a certain trope, but it's clearly not going to work with the players/PCs he has. The answer, most of the time, is to simply not use it. The time to use it would be when one of your PCs has evolved beyond being a selfish BMF, maybe becoming a jedi who's learned the value of forbearance and restraint. Then you can use it to demonstrate his character arc.

I've found that capturing players is FAR easier in this game than in many others. A heavy dosing of blasters set on stun can lead to a capture of the entire group remarkably quickly. In fact, the stun setting is often more effective at dropping characters than the more lethal option as WT tends to get higher than ST and players will often risk causing Strain to themselves for extra maneuvers and use of certain Talents. Add to that the fact that Stimpacks only heal Wounds,- NOT Strain - and Stun Setting becomes really attractive.

The only problem I have with this solution is that it may come off as forcing a result. To guarantee a capture result will still mean loading up the opposition to overwhelming odds and, as I've found, having Players fight in situations where the result is pre-determined only takes up time, is frustrating (especially when it becomes apparent that the PCs can't win), and just isn't fun, so don't fight the battle at all and cut scene it. The Player's may be a little unhappy that you took control (probably not at all if you've discussed this kind of thing beforehand) but not nearly as unhappy as if you forced them to fight a long battle they can't win just to get to the same place.

As long as you've discussed that you may infrequently do a "cut scene" ahead of time and do as I suggested earlier with extra experience etc. I've found that it works pretty well.