Well, I am coming into that very situation right now. My force user. The player stated that it is his goal to never use a blaster in my campaign. Human nature: When confronted with opposition/confrontation it is the automatic feeling to go into that fight or flight mode.

So after the initial WTF are you talking about, are you fraking serious kind of feeling, I still have a game to run, two players are no shows, my meager plans flying apart like Alderaan. So unfortunately I became a little confrontational. I wouldn't say I lost my cool or composure, but it did set the tone for the evening. (At the time I didn't even realize it, it wasn't until I really looked back on it and worked through it that I came to that conclusion.)

So my initial fight or flight response was to fight. Why in the he££ would you want to play Star Wars and never fire a gun. Is this guy just trying to make life difficult? The after game conversation did not go very well. I was sober, I think that was the first mistake.

Now I have to decide what I am going to do. It is the natural human feeling and GM feeling to try to test him and push him into situations where "HE HAS TO DO WHAT I WANT" kind of thing. (You have to read that in a loud booming voice by the way.) I think that is a very human and primal response. (This is just between us ok, but he also said that he has been kicked out of every group he has played in in the area for playing characters "too eccentric", read too difficult)

Ok, so now I know I'm just dealing with an ***hole here. Again, do I want to push back on him, get rid of him because I know he is going to be a problem child. Or do I want to be the first GM in the area to actually have him become part of a team, be the first to let him play the kind of "character" he wants too. Ok, just deleted half my post here, on purpose.

So for me as an ancient GM, who is still trying to get better, I am going to keep my odd man out. At least for now, if he can at least meet me some of the way, not even half way, just a little. Ok, so he doesn't want to use a gun, big deal. Should I try to fight him on his goal, or should I help realize it. I feel a lot of GMs would instinctively feel "oh, we'll see about that". I know I did, and I know that it is wrong to go through with that. So for now I have my force using, person tossing, gun grabbing maniac in my group. If the Group decides that this character doesn't fit in, then we will address that as a Group. So for me, I have decided, as long as he is not trying to harm my fun factor, or the other players, why should I harm his? If it gets to that point where the only way he is having is by ruining others fun, then he may have to go. You have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as long as that does not infringe on other's right to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

This might serve as an example. I'm playing a medic that is former imperial navy. The character was raised in a military family on a core world. He lived with the propoganda that the old republic was corrupt and crime was rampant, that the Jedi were responsible for trying to overthrow the government, and that the empire has brought peace and stability to most of the galaxy. He doesnt' beleive that the empire is spotless. He knows there are bad apples everywhere and that power corrupts. Many of the top officials (just like modern US politicians) are acting in their own self interests. As a medic, he beleives in protecting life when he can, so he disagree's with the human centric views of the empire and some slavery. But all in all, the empire is a positive to the galaxy.

So, what would I do if the GM pushed us into a rebelion role? Would I be right to push back? I hold a bit of a leadership role in my party so what if I decide to just say "Nope, we're going over to this system over here and looking for a bounty contract to fulfill." How should my GM react if I sided with the empire in an adventure?

Not to say that this is what's happening, and I look forward to developing the character naturally. We've already had several run-ins with Imperials that were past evil and deserved to die. And others that attack without warning or provocation on a settlement of crash survivors. It doesn't mean that he's flipped sides, but it has altered his views a bit. Still, it'll be a while before my character beleives the empire should be overthrown, if it happens at all.

It's little things like this that can impact play for everyone involved. GM's should know their players and players should know their GMs, but we'll never know or be prepared for everything. How flexible or rigid in views and goals is acceptable? Anyway, it's great discussion and I appreciate all of the different viewpoints.

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!

Meh, it's not for everyone.

I'd love to be in one of Maelora's game's; fortunately, you don't have to RP with a GM with such a singular (yet perfectly valid) opinion. So all's well in the world, nai?

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".

I was guilty of this in my last game, and it caused me to end that game (prematurely in the eyes of my players) when they decided they wanted to keep getting darker than I wanted to run. Playing scruffy "gray-area" outlaws is one thing, but my version of Star Wars doesn't have room for PCs that are murderous amoral slave traders. I gave them a few sessions to try to get away from that crap and had direct talks with them about it, but at the end of the day that's what they wanted, what I didn't want, and so I ended that campaign.

It's important to remember, however, that the GM shouldn't 100% bend to the whims and needs of the players: this might surprise some folks, but it's his game too. In fact, he's the one putting in (arguably) the most effort and work, so why shouldn't he tweak to make it enjoyable? If the players dislike it - don't play; but if the GM doesn't like it, then who's going to run the campaign?

As a very sincere question: Is the GM simply to get some players together, plan for absolutely nothing, and let whatever story that unfolds take the day? While certainly possible, I don't see much merit in doing so. Any direction or focus, even in the slightest, is "forcing" something on the players. There certainly doesn't need to be a destination, but without direction what is the point of the journey?

I look at the GM as the director of a film or theater production.

In some cases the GM might have a very firm idea and a very specific directions, a la Kubrick or Hitchcock. Other directors might take a much more freewheeling approach, like Christopher Guest setting up actors to improvise their scenes around a basic framework.

If the director has ideas as good as Kubrick or Hitchcock, it might work for that GM's particular group of friends and they might enjoy going along with that GM's particular vision.

Or the GM might have less of an interest in structuring the game and just wants to see where the whims of the players take the party.

And of course there's a whole spectrum between those two. It's up to the GM and the players to look for and find the group of players that suits their particular styles.

Well, I am coming into that very situation right now. My force user. The player stated that it is his goal to never use a blaster in my campaign. Human nature: When confronted with opposition/confrontation it is the automatic feeling to go into that fight or flight mode.

So after the initial WTF are you talking about, are you fraking serious kind of feeling, I still have a game to run, two players are no shows, my meager plans flying apart like Alderaan. So unfortunately I became a little confrontational. I wouldn't say I lost my cool or composure, but it did set the tone for the evening. (At the time I didn't even realize it, it wasn't until I really looked back on it and worked through it that I came to that conclusion.)

So my initial fight or flight response was to fight. Why in the he££ would you want to play Star Wars and never fire a gun. Is this guy just trying to make life difficult? The after game conversation did not go very well. I was sober, I think that was the first mistake.

Now I have to decide what I am going to do. It is the natural human feeling and GM feeling to try to test him and push him into situations where "HE HAS TO DO WHAT I WANT" kind of thing. (You have to read that in a loud booming voice by the way.) I think that is a very human and primal response. (This is just between us ok, but he also said that he has been kicked out of every group he has played in in the area for playing characters "too eccentric", read too difficult)

Ok, so now I know I'm just dealing with an ***hole here. Again, do I want to push back on him, get rid of him because I know he is going to be a problem child. Or do I want to be the first GM in the area to actually have him become part of a team, be the first to let him play the kind of "character" he wants too. Ok, just deleted half my post here, on purpose.

So for me as an ancient GM, who is still trying to get better, I am going to keep my odd man out. At least for now, if he can at least meet me some of the way, not even half way, just a little. Ok, so he doesn't want to use a gun, big deal. Should I try to fight him on his goal, or should I help realize it. I feel a lot of GMs would instinctively feel "oh, we'll see about that". I know I did, and I know that it is wrong to go through with that. So for now I have my force using, person tossing, gun grabbing maniac in my group. If the Group decides that this character doesn't fit in, then we will address that as a Group. So for me, I have decided, as long as he is not trying to harm my fun factor, or the other players, why should I harm his? If it gets to that point where the only way he is having is by ruining others fun, then he may have to go. You have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as long as that does not infringe on other's right to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

(The following is on the off-chance that he's not a ****. If he is, god help you.)

It may help to look at it from a different perspective: you're not forcing or tricking him into using a gun, you're testing his resolve. Then it's not an adversarial "you forcing him to play the game your way", it's the game universe seeing just how much his ethics really mean to him.

Every encounter where it looks like the only way he can save his buds is with the dropped gun a few feet away is a temptation - his own personal dark side, if you will. Every time he resists or finds a clever way around the problem in front of him, both you and he can feel proud. And when he fails - and eventually he will fail - you can roleplay how that failure feels. If it was some crappy reason that he didn't use guns, you only need crappy reasons for it to haunt him. If it's something more real (he's batman?) it can haunt his dreams. If it's something of a formal code, those who follow the same path will be disappointed in him or outright distrust him (which could put them in danger - good for the guilts).

That the player has been kicked out of several groups may not be the end of the world. That it's for excentricity could actually be a boon. You could be the GM who had the game that worked for him and that he worked for.

This might serve as an example. I'm playing a medic that is former imperial navy. The character was raised in a military family on a core world. He lived with the propoganda that the old republic was corrupt and crime was rampant, that the Jedi were responsible for trying to overthrow the government, and that the empire has brought peace and stability to most of the galaxy. He doesnt' beleive that the empire is spotless. He knows there are bad apples everywhere and that power corrupts. Many of the top officials (just like modern US politicians) are acting in their own self interests. As a medic, he beleives in protecting life when he can, so he disagree's with the human centric views of the empire and some slavery. But all in all, the empire is a positive to the galaxy.

So, what would I do if the GM pushed us into a rebelion role? Would I be right to push back? I hold a bit of a leadership role in my party so what if I decide to just say "Nope, we're going over to this system over here and looking for a bounty contract to fulfill." How should my GM react if I sided with the empire in an adventure?

Not to say that this is what's happening, and I look forward to developing the character naturally. We've already had several run-ins with Imperials that were past evil and deserved to die. And others that attack without warning or provocation on a settlement of crash survivors. It doesn't mean that he's flipped sides, but it has altered his views a bit. Still, it'll be a while before my character beleives the empire should be overthrown, if it happens at all.

It's little things like this that can impact play for everyone involved. GM's should know their players and players should know their GMs, but we'll never know or be prepared for everything. How flexible or rigid in views and goals is acceptable? Anyway, it's great discussion and I appreciate all of the different viewpoints.

If I were your GM and you told me this backstory early on and I still wanted to run a Rebel campaign, I'd work my ass off to engineer a situation where it looked like you'd have to take drastic action (including, yes, short-term rebellion) to put the Empire "back on track".

(A more united government isn't a bad idea by itself, not compared to the senatorial squabbling we see during the Clone Wars, and I've had post-trilogy characters who quickly grew to hate the aggressively self-interested politics of the New Republic.)

If the GM told the players right from the get-go that you'd end up on the side of the Rebels the emphasis is more on you to come up with reasons to be a part of the game everyone agreed to.

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.

Mate, if all you've read is the Tales comics, no wonder you have a sour taste!

Dark Horse have done some great stuff, KOTOR, Legacy, Dark Times & Dawn of the Jedi. I know it's not for everyone, but there is some quality stuff there.

My players range from expert knowledge to only having seen the OT. I tend to pre-load my phone with pictures of any of the more obscure stuff, so at the least they can get a visual idea of what a Houk looks like when it's telling they're barred from the Cantina. As far as what I allow, i mostly go along with where they lead. Some sessions we don't get one drop of the planned story done because of a detour, but as long as the detour is fun in itself that's fine.

stuff

Mate, if all you've read is the Tales comics, no wonder you have a sour taste!

Skippy the Jedi droid was fun.

Sorry, totally messed up my posting there!

Yeah, some of it was fun but it was their attempt at non-canon often 'humorous' stuff that very often missed the mark.