I had a thought that was inspired from something Maelora posted.

Part of me would love to see 'more stuff', but Star Wars characters are not really gadget heroes (unless you're Boba Fett).

Most of the guys in the movies get by using what they are, not what they carry.

First off, I'm not calling Maelora out, this thought was just sparked by her comment.

Why do so many GMs enforce their particular vision of star wars on the group? Can't have X armor, limited weapons, no gadgets, specific ships, etc.

The movies were such a miniscule fraction of the galaxy. They're not the end-all be-all of what star wars is. So, why do the players have to make their characters to fit the GMs mold? Why is it such a crime against star wars to go for a Hal Solo wearing armor or a gadget toting wookie? There's so much more out there to get inspiration from than the original trilogy.

I think part of it is trying to stomp min/max-ing, and the rest is like you said, just trying to force a particular vision of Star Wars. Which to an extent, I get, but at the same time it makes no sense. If you're wearing stormtrooper armor or carrying a large, powerful, restricted weapon, you're going to get punished - the same as if you flash a lightsaber or use noticeable force powers in the middle of the public.

Players will be players, they'll always do things that they shouldn't. Even if it means a group working for the Rebels is sneaking into a fancy party that has a ton of Imperial officials, and one of the member decides to bring his Heavy Battle Armor and Light Repeating Blaster through the main hall. As a GM, you know it's stupid, but should you just tell them "No" because they're getting themselves into trouble and this spoils whatever story plans you had in mind? No, you play things out like they would and let the havoc ensue. Because that's going to be more fun for the group, it should be more fun for the GM, and it'll make a more memorable experience.

Probably a lot of it has to do with the particular vision of the GM. Obviously an RPG is a combined storytelling exercise between the players and the GM, but ideally it is fun for everybody involved.

The particular chemistry of any given group is a big factor in whether the particular vision of the GM is "forced" on the players or if it's a group consensus. If most of the group agrees that it feel weird for Star Wars characters to be suiting up in heavy battle armor, then it's just a consensus of the group. If the players all want armor and the GM keeps insisting that it doesn't match the setting of Star Wars, that may be something they need to work out between them.

The GM as the director.

Whatever the game, you've got this big, sprawling universe, and without a single vision of what is true or correct, it can easily become an incoherent mess. Star Wars is actually more susceptible to this than other games because there have been so many people making their mark on it.

You could cut right back and say "only the films count", but even then you've got three prequels that feel nothing like the original trilogy. You could cut further, but even the originals have inconsistancies (mainly because things were being changed as the movies were being made).

Going the other way, you could put the whole expanded universe was in play, but then you need a single vision to make sense of it.

(I generally loath tie-in crap, often because it's written by hacks, often because it doen't fit with my vision of the universe, so I've read nothing of it beyond the Star Wars Tales comics. But I'm glad my GM has because otherwise I'd have missed out on the joy of blasting a Hutt-Predator, fake-Thrawn and some Yuzhan Vong.)

I suspect most groups find a happy medium, but it's part of the GM's to explain where that is and what is possible because of it.

I'm not talking about shutting down powergamers or min-maxers. But things like a GM saying that you can't wear padded armor because no one in the movies wore armor, so wearing armor isn't star wars. Or you can only have a YT-1300 because that's the type of ship that represents the spirit of star wars.

There are so many ways to make a character your own in this game, but I've seen more than a couple of posts where GMs are restricting what their players can have or do because it doesn't represent their vision of what star wars is.

It just seems like there are a few fine folks out there that have blinders on and only see star wars as this narrow band of what should be allowed or can happen. I don't understand that viewpoint, but I would really like to at least understand why they have it. Maybe this is just rambling or ranting, but it would awesome if someone had a good explanation of why a game should be restricted so much.

Maybe part of this comes from my love of science fiction and the plethora of awesome art out there showing folks in futuristic armor. Maybe it's because if I was going into harms way, and I could control it, I'd be donning body armor and grabbing a rifle, not just a leather jacket and a 9mm.

I think a part of it is that while the GM is the one running the game, they're also there to have fun. And let's face it, the GM is pretty much God when it comes to what is and isn't allowed in their campaign. If the game doesn't feel like Star Wars to them (whatever that may be), then they're less likely to have fun and more likely to end the game.

For some GMs, if it wasn't in the movies (or even just the Original Trilogy), then it's not Star Wars. Boba Fett died in RotJ, Anakin never had an apprentice, the bad guys are the ones decked out in major armor that conceals their faces while the good guys wear what looks to be regular clothing or very light armor.

A good GM will work with the players so that everyone's on the same page (more or less) as to what the vision of the campaign will be. I'm running what amounts to a series of one-shots for some friends, with the core idea being they're a Mission Ops group for the Rebel Alliance; they've been given a ship (a pretty nice one too) and are sent on various missions by Alliance Intelligence. Part of that campaign vision is that the PCs are part of a team, so no "lone wolf" or "I work alone!" type of characters need apply. And while I opened the floor to EotE careers & specs, I'm also using the Duty mechanic instead of Obligation; the PC might have shady elements to their backstory, but the main focus is that they're Rebels and part of the good guys, and thus fighting the good fight.

Well, I think SW is a big sandbox, and every group is free to pick and choose what they want and what they don't want to include. As the GM is the one doing most of the work, it's fair that he or she gets to go with their vision. That said, I made sure I got the players on board, and I've GMed for most of these guys for over a decade, so they all trust me to provide a great story.

The EU is pretty huge, and is of varying quality. And FFG seems careful not to inflict a 'canon' on us, so we're free to use what we want and ignore what we don't. My personal aim was to change the events of the original movies to make the PCs the heroes, but to stay true to the themes and motifs of those films (something I think the prequels failed to do IMHO).

I had a lot of help on this board from guys like Chortles who know the lore inside-out, and they helped me get up to speed with the EU and pick the bits I liked.

As to what that vision looks like, that's up to each group. I wanted fast action but strong storytelling, iconic settings but new PC characters, a heavy pulp influence with ramshackle technology, fighting for freedom (yours or others!) married to modern influences like Firefly and Mass Effect. And something that resonates with the fact we're all grown-ups, without losing the wonder we all felt about those movies as kids. Oh, and to retcon the things I felt were silly, like midichlorians, Order 66 and Force Unleashed. I didn't want to lose the movie heroes entirely, but needed them to take a back seat and mentor roles so the PCs could shine, and so made most of them older.

For me, the SW heroes are largely 'badass normals', jedi aside, so keeping a sense of vulnerability was important. Even heroes should be concerned at facing a rancor, or even having several blaster rifles pointed at them. Having twinked-out munchkin characters that could laugh in the face of that went against what I saw as 'Star Wars'. For EoE, I wanted Mal Reynolds and Indiana Jones, not over-the-top anime heroes that became the norm in things like Clone Wars.

But that's the power of an RPG. Your mileage may vary. A group can play manga-style games where everyone has Force powers and a lightsaber if you wish. Or a very gritty Sin City style game where you're always scraping for credits. Or anything in between.

Maybe part of this comes from my love of science fiction and the plethora of awesome art out there showing folks in futuristic armor. Maybe it's because if I was going into harms way, and I could control it, I'd be donning body armor and grabbing a rifle, not just a leather jacket and a 9mm.

Donovan said it more eloquently than I could.

For me, that's not SW. In EoE, our characters are a smuggling consortium, always one step ahead of the law. They're usually in urban areas, in shady cantinas or city streets under Imperial occupation. Every once in a while, they go to some remote world where the Bounty Hunter can don her heavy armour and bring out the big guns, and the Exile can go crazy hurling ships around. But that's not the norm for shadowrunners.

In AoE, the characters are a SpecOps team. Sometimes, they will get to suit up and fight ground battles in the open. But as often as not, they are spying and doing recon, or otherwise operating behind enemy lines, where NOT attracting attention to themselves is advisable.

Either way, playing things low-key helps distinguish 'Star Wars' from 'Halo'. You walk into a cantina in armour, toting a big gun, and the place will empty in seconds and you'll be hip-deep in stormtroopers before you can say 'Han Shot First'...

If your droid looks like an astromech or protocol model, you'll pass under the radar. If it resembles the illegitimate offspring of the Star Forge and the Death Star, expect trouble.

For the record, I have never denied a player any equipment that she has found or is capable of buying or else acquiring in line with the rules. If they want armor and they can afford it or machine it or steal it, it's theirs. If they want their character to look like Sam Fisher or the Master Chief when they're decked out, done. In fact, I can't think of a single GM who would deny a group their rightful gear, especially if it's something listed in the rules.

The game takes place entirely in your imagination. You might use miniatures and a board for visual help in strategy, but in the end they're just markers. You and your brain decide the aesthetics of the universe, so who am I to tell you it "has to look like the movies"? How can I know that the picture in your head is different than the one in mine? And frankly, so long as I'm happy with how it looks in my head, why should I care what yours looks like?

Sure, walking into a public place heavily armed and armored will attract attention, but it depends on where you are. Coruscant? Yeah, they'll tell you to leave your blaster on your ship and take off your helmet, and you probably can't visit the opera or eat at a restaurant, but if you're the type to walk around in your full Mandalorian rig, you probably don't care. Mos Eisley? Nobody cares, and frankly, trying to take away someone's gun is to end up eating their fist with a blaster bolt chaser.

Want to walk into a governor's office with your assassin droid all decked out? Go ahead, but be prepared for a few Setback dice on social rolls, some dirty looks, maybe someone refusing to talk to you. But hey, that'll happen if you bring even an astromech into the wrong cantina.

My point is, the players can do what they want so long as they have fun. There's going to be some consequences, but that's just life for you. You can't get away from people judging you at a glance. My job as a GM is to point out how the players' choices could impact their fun, but if they want to appear out of place in armor when speaking to a Senator, then that's their decision and I'll roll with it. Also? The full kit might be a Setback die on Charm and Negotiation, but it's a Boost die on Coercion.

For the EU stuff that might not fit... eh. If a player loves some piece of the Expanded Universe and they can make a good enough case, I'll include it. Vader having a secret apprentice? Sure, but he wasn't as godly as the games made him out to be. Kal Skirata and the Mando'a? I can believe that there are multiple factions of Mandalorians, no problem.

And for the record, I think The Clone Wars did a better job of hewing closer to the spirit and adventure of the original movies than the prequels did, "canon priority" be damned.

I don't deny players any sort of equipment, I do however impose reality on people. Not all missions are going to allow someone to stomp around in full armor with a heavy blast rifle, it simply will not do. I try to craft my games so that I don't have to say no, it just becomes clear they can't use certain stuff.

I try to involve all elements of what might constitute an adventure, the high society ball where social skills will be far more important than an auto blaster. Playing Sabacc in a casino. I think the more a GM makes their games varied, the easier it is for everyone but the dimmest of players to see they need to be able to multi task, and not just skills. Craft your games where a considerable amount of gear and supplies have to be carried and Joe Gun needs to be able to help, so maybe they realize they need to lighten their own load a bit.

Don't get me wrong, there are times where I will let Joe Gun shine and it's the finale of the Bond movie setting with the big commando raid on the SPECTRE lair and an absolute free fire zone.

In fact, I can't think of a single GM who would deny a group their rightful gear, especially if it's something listed in the rules.

That sounds like a 4E mentality to me, I'm afraid. I don't see the players as having 'rightful gear' or any sense of entitlement. They have what they can get, and if I feel like allowing it. No disruptor weapons in my game, and very little inconspicuous armour. My lightsabers are activated purely by Force-sensitive thought and cannot be used by muggles. No 'cortosis' or midicholorians. No Vong.

So if some supplement creates a twinked-out 'must have' Blaster+5, I can cheerfully ignore it if I want.

My table, my rules.

The people I play with understand I will give them plenty of cool stuff, but it will all fit seamlessly into my vision of what I want the game to be.

Something else I've never seen talked about in regards to gear is maintenance. Particularly armor. I know in my game, armor is not a forever thing. After a session where players took fire, there is maintenance and that costs money. It's another encouragement in the high soak conversation for the tank to keep their head down unless they always want to keep dumping their cut into repairs. I inject reality like I said into my games.

I don't see the players as having 'rightful gear' or any sense of entitlement. They have what they can get, and if I feel like allowing it.

That's my point. If they can get it in my game, then they can have it. For my part, anything in the book is fair game, though subject to availability. And I don't think there's much armor that can be concealed anyway.

Fair enough, Captain.

Your table, your rules!

Interesting thoughts and I thank everyone for thier insight so far. I totally understand situational restrictions to equipment. No heavy weapons or armor in a heavily metropolitan area, etc.

In a universe where just about anyone anywhere can be packing a blaster pistol I would be shocked to not see more light armors though. Blast vests, padded armor and armored clothing would seem like they would be fairly common for anyone expecting trouble.

But I think things are shifting to a focus on armor rather than more thematic elements. I know armor is a big part of how a character looks but I'd like to steer the conversation back to a more general conversation on character options being restricted because it doesn't fit what the GM says is "Star Wars". Not to include an agreed upon limitation for campaign style like everyone deciding that they want to play a sneaky or shadowrun game so no heavy equipment or a firefly-esq so no force abilities.

Ahrimon, the question 'what is Star Wars? was easier to answer in 1982 than it is in 2014.

The EU is huge. I don't see an issue with any given GM playing it straight, or offering something wildly divergent, as long as the players agree. I've no doubt many purists wouldn't like my games. It's not being run for them.

I threw out a bunch of stuff I didn't like. Some are just fluff, like midichlorians or Force ghosts. Some have mechanical effects, like no disruptor weapons, or that a Force Rating is required to use a lightsaber.

Say a GM decides that his world has no wookiees or something. They should be free to do so, providing the players know that in advance and are okay with it.

When I'm GMing D&D I don't feel as if I have to include every race, every class, every feat, every magic item. If 'dragonborn' don't fit the theme of my world, then I won't allow them as a PC option.

EoE is no different there. If a new FFG splatbook brings us Lepi PCs, rest assured I shall be banning them forthwith. I'll just say 'space myxomatosis' killed them off

There's so much more out there to get inspiration from than the original trilogy.

BLASPHAMY!!!! *points and hisses*

Heheheh. Actually, Chortles convinced me that liking, or not liking, the EU was silly - it's so vast that everyone will find some bits that suit them and other bits that don't.

I like EoE's focus on the movies I fell in love with as a girl. But there's no shortage of stuff out there for those who want something else. I think FFG have really handled the 'canon' well in this regard.

Everyone's game is different. RPGs are not about conformity.

I love the OT; I also love the PT's storylines (even if I hated the cardboard delivery of the script, or the lacking quality of the writing), even though that puts me in the minority. I don't limit characters on what they can pick up and take with them - but I do remind them of the consequences of binging on gear (social problems, unwanted scrutiny, being able to physically carry what they're totting, etc.)

I would tell someone use the canon you like. More importantly than that I would tell someone use your own imagination and make some great house canon yourself. The best games are going to be the ones where you aren't mimicking someone else's vision but rather when you are all sitting around making your own.

I'm just gonna toss this out there, I wouldn't play in Maelora's games, not even once. Or anyone else who was tossing out items from the rulebook that the publishers put a lot of time and effort into.

If I've got a rulebook in front of me, playtested and quality controlled by a company who's been in the game for a while and who consistently puts out **** fine products, and then some GM says, "you can't have that in my game", I'm gonna say, well no thanks then, find another player".

There has been one game when I dissalowed something the developers put in, the game was SLA Industries, the publisher was Nightfall, and the verboten material was a player race called "Vevaphons", because they were shape-shifters who could, at will, move their hitpoints around to different locations of their body, which mattered in that game, and I didn't feel like adding the complication for my hit point bookkeeping. There were also anti-material, one-shot-kills-anything rifles in that game, and you could walk around in what amounted to a personal war mech, or drive around in an APC that pretty much nothing could kill. Those were allowed. Me outlawing the Vevaphon was due to me being lazy, not keeping power out of my players' hands.

A GM saying, "you can't have armor", or, "you can't have that weapon", sounds to me like they don't want their NPCs getting stomped by their players. But here's my stance there, RPGs are a game for players to enjoy, the players are the heroes and they are supposed to win. Deal with it. Running an RPG is the wrong avenue for a GM to show how badass their monsters are, it's not the GM's time to shine. Your players are your stars, and I believe any RPG should be about pleasing them, not you, the GM.

For me, Edge of the Empire is a game of fantasy wish-fulfillment. My Star Wars fantasy is being a badass bounty hunter with badass looking heavy armor and a badass pair of rifles to choose from as the job demands, bringing in criminals and getting paid for that. I want to get into the character of someone who knows their way around the Star Wars criminal underworld, navigates it like a fish to water, and is **** hard to kill in a straight fight along the way.

Now I don't know Maelora, but from frequently following her on these forums, she strikes me a very intelligent, skilled GM who has a passion for the hobby which is often hard to find in a GM. And I totally respect that and wish more GMs were like how she sounds. But my Star Wars fantasy would never be fulfilled at a table which forbids armor and disruptor rifles so I wouldn't be interested in spending my time there.

These are my dreams, my wishes, and I'm taking them back, I'm taking them all back!

Ok I have been following all this, and now I wish to interject. What is Star Wars to you?

Wow, huge question. It was stated earlier that the 1982 Star Wars and 2014 Star Wars are worlds apart. But really who's vision is being forced on whom? A story teller creating a world, or players creating their own world and forcing the GM to go along for the ride. On forbidding equipment: well, there is one piece of tech in any universe I run that will never exist, it is from the WEG Galladium's Fantastic Technology book. The Astromech voice box. You strap in onto an R2 or whatever you want, and now it can speak out loud the language of your choosing. Sorry, if GL wanted R2 to speak English, he would have made his movie that way.

I have ran games where the guys were the heavy armor wearing Ironmanesque merc group. Some games where they never wore armor. Really it should boil down to want the whole group wants. It is the responsibility of the GM to provide an engaging game for the players. Any limits should be set at the very beginning of the game. I had thought I made it clear to my group on my EU policy, but it seems I have to reaffirm that. If I have a player tell me his goal is to become a hulking armor brute, then half way into the campaign I tell him he can't have armor is pretty jacked up.

When it comes to equipment and the type of game that is being played, it should be a team effort of the Game Operations Director and the players. When it comes to EU and canon, I feel that really should just be in the GMs hand. So anyway, the GM should let the players know what if anything is going to be excluded, and if the players want to play in that game, then they have no right to b.....

I do admit as a GM I am kind of stingy when it comes to equipment. I like to spread out the gift giving. This adventure they get the big gun, then after one or two more, the get the cool attachment, then later they get the beefed up armored clothing. I like to have the equipment kind of grow as they "level" up.

And so do the bad guys...

Thank you everyone for the responses and discussion. It's given me a lot to think about and some excellent points of view to ponder. Hopefully, it'll help me grow as a GM and player.

I would like to flip the coin and look at the other side. Players that attempt to push their view into the game. For example, running an oceans 11 style game and one player does everything possible to aquire anything that goes boom. Or combat game where someone tries to play the pacifist. Or even on a more narrative front where someone wants to a noble and constantly pushes his position in order to get what he wants even though it's messing with the story. Or even that player that wants to play an imperial spy in an AoR game.

I do beleive in the illusion of the sandbox. But I know I'm not skilled enough as a GM and I've never met someone who is truly skilled enough to run a true sandbox and react to everything the players want. Most times the game has a theme or some other minor limitations exist and those are great for helping the GM to keep the flow going or to at least keep him or her sane.

I know for many it's easy enough to just ask them to find a new group. But not everyone has that luxury.

So, how do you work with characters that push the boundries of your star wars vision in minor ways, wants to be outside the box in an odd way, or simply is the odd man out in their group?

Please remember, I'd like to avoid the dealing with powergamers discussion. While applicable, it is a whole different subject.

Please define pushing any vision l may or may not have in minor ways?

So, how do you work with characters that push the boundries of your star wars vision in minor ways, wants to be outside the box in an odd way, or simply is the odd man out in their group?

My answer may be an oversimplified one, "don't get married to YOUR version of Star Wars if you're GM".

If it's in the rulebooks, it's in Star Wars, Edge of the Empire. When I GM, I want the PCs to be on the wrong side of the law and getting double-crossed by crime lords. Consequently I send the Empire and Crime Lords' agents after them.

I tell my players to tell me what kind of Star Wars experience they want to have. Then I implement that into our future adventures.