Reading some of the post here i find it interesting that some GMs let players do whatever they want. Stealing the shuttle in Escape from Mos Shuuta. hacking credit chips, hacking enemy starships in combat

I know the common advice is to not say "No" instead say "Yes, but..."

My biggest problem is having a credible threat to the players without killing them or just spamming stun grenades at them.

I'm not sure what you're asking or stating exactly, but two things to keep in mind...

1) You're the one telling the story; if you want it to work, let them go with it. If you really don't think it'll work or it'll kill your story, cover it up. They fight their way onto the ship - why would an imperial lamda class ship be landing in the small, back-water town of Mos Shuuta? Because it suffered massive trauma recently and needed emergency repairs in exchange for Storm Trooper assistance to Teemo. Unfortunately, it hasn't recieved all the repairs yet ("yes, but.." = you stole it, but it has very limited usefulness). Or...

2) You're the man behind the curtain; you can always adjust the difficulty of things or add setback dice to stuff for no reason, a made up reason, or just to make it so they can attempt but very unlikely to succeed. You can play it off as the mystery "Yes, this is very difficult... wouldn't you like to know why? Attempt it and maybe you'll find out " I consider hacking cred chips a formidable task (5 difficulty) - if it were as easy to do as picking a lock (3 difficulty), there would be a lot more people doing it. You could also throw in some setback dice (wouldn't a bank or the empire put additional security on their cards to alert them if a hack is attempted?). If you don't want them doing something, let them roll for it, but make it so difficult the odds are ever against them (and hell, if they succeed, maybe they deserve to).

This is one of the awesome things about this game; sometimes, even when all the odds are stacked against them, fate will see to it that a PC will survive and/or succeed. I had a group drive a truck off a cliff (it was a 1-off game with premade characters, they were testing the mechanics). Given the scenario of the cliffs, I gave them a level 4 dificulty (daunting), upgraded the difficulty by 1 with a dark destiny point and added a setback die. With a pilot (planetary) check and one light destiny point upgrade, not only did they succeed (net: two success), they generated only ONE threat and managed a triumph (the second success). Even though we (read: me) were trying to kill the characters with this stunt, when they succeed AND triumph, you just have to say "Wow. You did it."

In regards to creating credible threat, if they attempt something like steal a ship or hack cred chips... the threat is fairly easy (if not generic): security.

Look at the back of the EotE CRB - there are several minions and rivals for security (local authority and Space Port personel). Send a couple rivals in to handle the situation and yes they should be able to win, but they should also walk away with a bit of a beating. After this happens a few times, they'll start thinking twice before trying it again (if not, make the NPCs slightly tougher each time - one extra Brawn here, an extra Agility there and those stats start to add up)

If they want to hack an opposing ship in combat (beside the need for proper equipment to do so), the threat could be that the opposing ship catches on and doubles back by attempting to hack THEIR ship. Again, if this happens a few times, maybe they'll reconsider. Otherwise, you can also give system strain (the ship is not only being pushed to fly, manuver and absorb damage, but now you want to boost your com signal enough to overload the opponent's transeiver and send a signal into it powerful and steady enough to manipulate THEIR systems... ya, system strain is also going to happen on your ship)

I know the common advice is to not say "No" instead say "Yes, but..."

A common misconception, in my opinion. The real rule should be, "Feel free to say no to your players, but don't say no to their characters." I'll flat out ignore requests that don't come from a character's motivation, obligation, or just basic needs and wants. If it's my players trying to get me to give them free stuff, they're out of luck.

Jetpacks don't grow on trees, after all. They must be earned.

Credible threats are mostly born from how you roll the dice and how you get the players to feel about them. Sure, the pirate captain I've created might be a Toydarian, not all that strong or sure of shot, but if there's a gradual escalation of tension leading up to the final confrontation, the players will approach him seriously. Even if the encounter wasn't going to be very difficult from the start, if they hit it with a cohesive plan and it goes smoothly, they'll credit their own skills before they think to question the enemy's power level.

I'm not saying you should manipulate your players, but just bear in mind that they'll bring part of the story, too. Your job is to enable the story -- yours and theirs -- to be told, no matter the outcome. Failure is a valid option in the hero's journey, so long as the journey is undertaken.

Reading some of the post here i find it interesting that some GMs let players do whatever they want. Stealing the shuttle in Escape from Mos Shuuta. hacking credit chips, hacking enemy starships in combat

I know the common advice is to not say "No" instead say "Yes, but..."

My biggest problem is having a credible threat to the players without killing them or just spamming stun grenades at them.

Does it have to be a combat threat? If they're combat heavy, maybe throw something where drawing blasters is the last thing they would want to do.

I do let my players do pretty much whatever makes sense (I'm a "Yes, but" guy) but the key thing here is that it has to make sense to the story, and that's what the "but" is for. However, I don't think there's a problem saying "no" if a player request is completely out of line - if you can phrase it in a "yes, but" then you might have better player buy-in.

Example: my players were captured by an imperial frigate, and these murder hobos decided they wanted to try to take it over.

"Can we try to take it over?" they asked.

"Yes, but there are a thousand troops onboard so your chances of a positive outcome are slim." I replied.

This left the story open for them to at least think about it. If they were to come up with a stellar plan (they didn't) then I would have rolled with it. Some might say that's going too far, but I see it as an opportunity, not a crisis.

Let them do whatever they want, but inform them their actions will garner more Obligation. Then apply it as needed.

Let them do whatever they want, but inform them their actions will garner more Obligation. Then apply it as needed.

Tricky to implement. I'd say hold this for the most grievous actions; everything else could just have local -- permanent, but local -- consequences.

a lot of it depends on how comfortable you are with GMing, as well as what type of game/story you are trying to run.

i disagree with above comment that "you are the one telling the story." there are other people at the table who are (and should be!) participating and contributing to the story. if you are not listening to their ideas, you are basically telling them your ideas are more important and more interesting. this type of play also encourages railroad stories and "GM vs the players" mentality, which i don't like. GMs that i've played under who have used tabletop RPGs as a platform to tell THEIR story leave me feeling frustrated and bored. i leave the session with the thought "why was i even there?" go write a book, GM, if you just want to tell your story. and as a player, if i want to play a game like that, i'll go play assassin's creed or planescape torment (both games i really enjoy, but don't feel like i really contribute to the story as it's being told).

of course, i'm talking about one end of a spectrum. i don't think all GMs who follow a fairly tight script always shoehorn their players into prescribed actions, or that the GM is always taking the characters for walks on leashes to observe the world they have created (in a sort of tolkien-esque kind of way...). what i'm saying is that if you know you are toward this end of the spectrum as a GM, you should be aware of some of the potential dangers and pitfalls.

the other end of the spectrum is a GM who runs a sandbox game with zero story. that end certainly has its own set of dangers.

i'm a firm believer that a tabletop RPG should be a collaborative process - as a GM, i find this is a much more rewarding (and easier!) way to play. you don't have to come up with all the possible solutions to every encounter. as a GM in a more 'collaborative story' type of game, i think your job is to :

1) introduce new and interesting challenges (good point, themensch, they don't have to be always combat related!)

2) allow players freedom to be creative

3) present realistic consequences of their actions (many which might pose new threats and obstacles)

4) give equal-ish spotlight time to each character/player

5) weave a cohesive story, bringing back in loose ends and familiar NPCs

so, to answer the question more directly, i let my players go as far as they want. BUT, it has to make sense for the world and the story. they also know that all their actions have appropriate and logical consequences. i also ALWAYS sit down with the group before the first session to discuss where they (and i) plan for the story to go. this sets a very rough outline for the story. this structure is important, and we often revisit this discussion.

if you give examples of times when players take certain actions, i'm sure this community can help brainstorm handfuls of creative, logical, and challenging consequences for their decisions (either for use in game, or just to provide examples).

Let them do whatever they want, but inform them their actions will garner more Obligation. Then apply it as needed.

Tricky to implement. I'd say hold this for the most grievous actions; everything else could just have local -- permanent, but local -- consequences.

There is no reason that Obligation cannot simply be local. Nor that local consequences cannot spill into the larger galaxy.

After all, if you dishonored that Wealthy Landowner's son then Daddy may send bounty hunters to even the score. No matter where you stay. Same with the local company you robbed, or the local government that you maligned.

See, I agree with the above to say no to players, not characters. . .to a point.

If the request is reasonable, doesn't unbalance the game and allows everyone at the table to have fun? Then the answer is yet.

Example: at my table, my players wanted to have more than the basic character. After discussing things, I granted everyone at the table an additional talent tree at no cost and a single bit of gear worth 500 credits tied to their role on the ship (medic got his kit, mechanic a toolkit, etc)

If it is something that the PLAYER wants that has nothing to do with their character, it increases the odds. I reward good roleplaying, not jerk stunts.

Example: One player joked about stealing a Star Destroyer. The answer was NO.

Clearer example: The politico suddenly wanted a sniper rifle (a normal demand from the player), which didn't make sense with his concept (he wanted to be a Bond-style infiltrator and built himself accordingly as a Politico-Assassin). He pulled a rifle off of a corpse and begged the party to get him the barrel mod. The character lost this rifle after the first job, and didn't hit a target due to standard difficulties of Extreme Range (2Y 1G vs 4P 1B). He may have gotten the picture.

Essentially, if it makes sense, moves the game ahead, makes the game enjoyable for everyone and doesn't cause problems, I'm all for it. Otherwise, there's going to be hell to pay should I allow it to pass.

Roleplaying is based on a group game so, main set must be concillied between players and GM before the start with things like Canon things, if you want a Force or not focused game or if you want that Vader wears a pink tutú on your games.

After that point, in my opinion, GM would have the absolute power in the game. Of course GM's can/must listen to their players to improve the collective experience but, the main decission powers and responsabilities fall on GM's hands.

I have a pair of friends that play a "almost double GM" game style. Not my style but I respect it.