The solution to the "Stun Wars" is really simple, don't let the fights take place at close range. Use cover, long range weapons, snipers, etc to counter the "close and stun" tactic.

Yes, stun damage can be very effective. I had a character last session take out twelve minions with a couple of well placed stun grenades. Granted hey were minions, and were all in the same room, but it really was like shooting fish in a barrel.

I don't see that as game breaking. I see it as clever tactics, like a SWAT team with flash-bangs. The monster doctor with 6 Brawn, 5 ranks Brawl, 5 ranks Medicine, 3 ranks Feral Strength and Deadly Accuracy is going to burn a lot of experience getting that way. Experience that is not going to be spent getting better at other stuff. One easy GM counter is to design adventures and encounters that cannot be resolved through application of Iron Fist Technique. Slicing computers, social interactions, racing to find a cure for an alien disease, logic puzzles, mysteries, etc. or a good old speeder bike chase through the alleys of Coruscant.

The other option is to embrace that play style. My players mostly want to blow stuff up in an epic manner. So I write adventures with plenty of epic stuff to blow up. I am pretty sure that a player who wanted to game she system could create a social monster or a piloting monster, or just about any other narrowly focused and unbeatable in that one area character. If the player builds a hammer nothing says you have to give him problems that can be solved by pounding.

Reading the books looking for theoretical loopholes is one thing, but what shows up in actual play is often quite another.

A body stunned and shot again with lethal isn't going to attract any more attention than a body shot twice with lethal.

Agreed. I just read the previous discussion as if the characters would stun their enemy and then walk up to them and execute them at point blank range or slice their throat. Which would be different from someone shot in a gunfight at range.

If the characters does that a few times no one will be the wiser in all likelyhood but if they do that routinely someone is going to notice I imagine.

A body stunned and shot again with lethal isn't going to attract any more attention than a body shot twice with lethal.

You sure about that chief?

Remember that while yes, Jabba's goons might not be able to tell the goons you blasted were stunned first, I bet a professional investigator/hunter/scanner/forensics crew could. And leaving no witnesses isn't always an option.

Just imagine, if you knocked someone unconcious (even through means that truely did leave no trace) and then shot them in the head, a simple ballistics analysis would show the shooters position, the victims position, a rough esitmate of range, and a give some good clues (if not outright expose) about the kind of gun you used.

It's probably not too far out to say that Star Wars could do all the same, just instead of looking at th bullet and the scratches and grooves on it, they'd be looking at the "burn diameter, energy dissipation patterns, and particle disspersion signature" or some similar pseudo science that would yield roughly the same information. Then we assume that stunning someone would probably also produce some kind of detectable evidence of shock and now the investigators know the victim was stunned and then shot.

Combine that with all the other possible evidence at the scene (oh, they blasted the droid? did they also remember to wipe the memory core, and remove the active memory unit and the optical processing buffer?) and the Local law/Empire/Sector Rangers will have more then enough to go on. Obligation:Criminal anyone?

This is a little D-bag GM, but if the players really need an in-game reason not to abuse the system, there it is. I would always just try asking nicely first though. Once you explain that this is Star Wars and to just have fun with it most decent players will get in line.

I don't think he is discussing the matter forensically, as you are approaching it, but more morally. I for one would prefer to be stunned into unconsciousness and then killed, rather than violently killed while conscious. In the end though, murder is murder, and I don't think any legal authorities in the Star Wars universe would treat you any differently for which way you chose to kill your opponents, lethally, or non-lethally then followed by lethally, other than perhaps noting your predilections, much like a serial killer's chosen methodologies.

As for the actual topic of this discussion, it is a very large and known problem in our group as well. As it stands, we are more or less just operating on a gentleman's agreement to not use stun damage, especially soak ignoring stun damage like Pressure Point and Scathing Tirade, since it trivializes the game. I don't really have any suggestions for resolving the issue, it is a systemic problem with the game system. Bumping grit to +2 per rank might help, but I don't know. We have mostly just been avoiding the whole issue. Since taking someone below their wound threshold generally doesn't result in a killing crit, we pretty much just use that to knock people out. Definite weakness of the system though, especially with ion weapons and pc droids.

If someone wanted to abuse the system so that they choose to use stun in situations where people would normally not do so as to take advantage of rules, ie to powergame, ultimately I would let them but I would penalise them in the one way the rules does allow this.

The thing is, if the rules really are set up so that stunning is a superior tactic (and I'm not saying it is), then there aren't very many "situations where people would normally not" use stun, because people normally do what works. The characters live in a reality governed by the game rules just as we live in a reality governed by physics.

If I need to move something heavy and I put it on a hand truck rather that just dragging it across the ground, am I "powergaming"? I'm certainly taking advantage of "the rules" to accomplish my task more efficiently.

If the rules make a given tactic more effective than others, then that tactic is going to be encouraged. Knowing that and designing accordingly is a great way to encourage particular play styles. On the other hand, If the rules inadvertently make a tactic more effective, that will still encourage particular play styles, but the fault doesn't lie in the player who has been encouraged.

Those that then play the game right get a bonus

Well, I'd question whether playing the game the way the rules encourage should be characterized as not playing "right." It might be more accurate to say "Those that then play the game the way I'd prefer get a bonus.

Of course, what you're suggesting here is changing the rules to encourage the play style you want them to encourage, which isn't wrong, but isn't superior to the hypothetical folks who are stunning a lot because the rules hypothetically encourage it.

Using stun should be used when they want to stun, if they want to kill using stun, that pretty much makes no sense from a role playing point of view.

If under the rules stunning is the most efficient way of taking an enemy out of the fight, then stunning makes a ton of sense from a role playing point of view. From a role playing point of view, the character is fighting for his life, and is going to do what it takes to stop the guys who are trying to kill him, even if that means stunning them instead of shooting to kill.

Never in any film have I seen the good guys stun someone then kill them.

That's because characters in a film live in a reality whose rule is "the tactic the writer wants to work is the one that works."

I don't see how Scathing Tirade is a "game breaker". It allows non-combatant diplomat PC's to do something in a conflict. (Either social or combative). Even if you roll well, it's certainly no worse than getting hit by a Light Repeating Blaster with a good roll.

Also, unless the entire group is doing stun damage, Nemesis actually survive longer when the groups damage is split up between Wound and Strain. IF the entire group is trying for stun damage, one long range fortified sniper kills the whole group.

I still don't see a problem. Restricting stun damage seems like gimping an entire playstyle.

I had originally planed on quoting several rules in the book but this should come to an end.

Just do whatever feels right in your game. The game is more about fun that getting everything exactly right. Even if the game rules say "151+ crit roll is death" and you don't want it to cause a death, then don't. (just an example)

Do what is fun, if people are abusing a mechanic, steer them away from it or abuse it right back.

I don't see how Scathing Tirade is a "game breaker". It allows non-combatant diplomat PC's to do something in a conflict. (Either social or combative). Even if you roll well, it's certainly no worse than getting hit by a Light Repeating Blaster with a good roll.

Also, unless the entire group is doing stun damage, Nemesis actually survive longer when the groups damage is split up between Wound and Strain. IF the entire group is trying for stun damage, one long range fortified sniper kills the whole group.

I still don't see a problem. Restricting stun damage seems like gimping an entire playstyle.

I get the impression that people aren't using Scathing Tirade right.

It's 1 target per success getting 1 stun. Advantages then distribute out 1 stun per advantage spent to one of those targets.

So if you have 6 successes and 4 advantage (a solidly good roll) that is a total of 10 stun distributed out amongst 6 targets assuming there are 6 available (so a spread of 1,1,1,2,2,3 would work).

If there were only 1 target, they would get 5 stun. A big hit, but that roll would have likely been a more damaging rifle shot.

My group doesn't use it more because of the ability to use it as a maneuver. However, I really don't want to debate the merits of Scathing Tirade. We had a long thread about it, and RAW, it is working as intended by the developers. My group believes it isn't, so we have a gentleman's agreement to not use it, but others can do whatever. I only mentioned it in the greater context of the negative experience my group has had with the "stun wars" as it has been termed in this thread.

For the pedantic: "Two-Weapon Combat"

"a character may opt to carry a Ranged (Light) weapon or a melee weapon in each hand, increasing his volume of attacks at the expense of accuracy." "When attacking with two weapons, the character must be wielding two weapons"

Brawl skill is used for Unarmed Combat.

"Dual Wield" is not a rule in this game.

The rules for Two-weapon combat clearly reference a character attacking with "two weapons" not two "attacks, weapons or appendages". Likewise the rules for unarmed combat use the Brawl skill, possibly with added qualities from a Brawl weapon. No mention is made of two weapon combat being used with the Brawl skill. It is either/or. Also I would rule that "shock gloves" are one weapon, not two. Under the two weapon combat rules it states that only one-handed weapons may be used, shock gloves (like fists) are generally employed as a two-handed weapon.

I don't see any problem with the two weapon combat rules. Especially when a sniper on the roof top with a heavy blaster rifle will take care of any two-gun mojo in short order.

I am going to get 20 arms implanted on my body and try to hit with twenty-two weapon fighting

I think I would need the dice app for this.

For the pedantic: "Two-Weapon Combat"

"a character may opt to carry a Ranged (Light) weapon or a melee weapon in each hand, increasing his volume of attacks at the expense of accuracy." "When attacking with two weapons, the character must be wielding two weapons"

Brawl skill is used for Unarmed Combat.

"Dual Wield" is not a rule in this game.

The rules for Two-weapon combat clearly reference a character attacking with "two weapons" not two "attacks, weapons or appendages". Likewise the rules for unarmed combat use the Brawl skill, possibly with added qualities from a Brawl weapon. No mention is made of two weapon combat being used with the Brawl skill. It is either/or. Also I would rule that "shock gloves" are one weapon, not two. Under the two weapon combat rules it states that only one-handed weapons may be used, shock gloves (like fists) are generally employed as a two-handed weapon.

I don't see any problem with the two weapon combat rules. Especially when a sniper on the roof top with a heavy blaster rifle will take care of any two-gun mojo in short order.

This is really already being addressed in another thread , but it should be noted that Brawl weapons are specifically mentioned in the Two-Weapon Combat rules . Not sure if people are just not reading the rules, or...?

Nm, read the other thread