Star Wars: Insurgency

[tangent]

@Faceless I still boggle at the idea of Luke Skywalker: Ladies Man. And, sure, Mara Jade but on this game she's still firmly in the trying to kill Luke mode.

[Kairos]

@ixokai

There's a lot of good ideas out there to steal. I may not be pointing you at anything you haven't found already, but http://www.faterpg.com/licensing/licensing-fate-cc-by/ has a repository of 'System Resource Documents' which have a lot of good stuff in them. SRD's are bare-bones, no fluff rules documents from various FATE resources that Evil Hat has licensed for public general use (the details of how to make use of that license are on that page but the short version is 'you have to credit them for their work'). The ease of legal use is one of the reasons I'm a big fan of FATE Core and Evil Hat in general.

DriveThruRPG also has a bunch of fate supplements available on 'Pay What You Want'. Not sure how many of them might be helpful but they're handy to pick through. There's also a bunch of more traditional offerings (ie, ones you have to pay for) that have ideas. If anyone on your team is up to spending the money, I'd recommend Transhumanity's Fate (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/176939/Eclipse-Phase-Transhumanitys-Fate?sorttest=true&filters=0_0_44284_0_0) and Jadepunk (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/127543/Jadepunk-Tales-From-Kausao-City?filters=0_0_44284_0_0) for general ideas stealing, but your mileage may vary.

Also, the Fate System Toolkit (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/119385/Fate-System-Toolkit?sorttest=true&filters=0_0_44284_0_0) is available for pay what you want pricing and I've found that one pretty handy in my own fate hacking efforts.

Again, apologies if I'm mentioning things you already know about. Good luck with your systems building!

[ixokai]

@Kairos said in Star Wars: Insurgency:

There's a lot of good ideas out there to steal. I may not be pointing you at anything you haven't found already, but http://www.faterpg.com/licensing/licensing-fate-cc-by/ has a repository of 'System Resource Documents' which have a lot of good stuff in them. SRD's are bare-bones, no fluff rules documents from various FATE resources that Evil Hat has licensed for public general use (the details of how to make use of that license are on that page but the short version is 'you have to credit them for their work'). The ease of legal use is one of the reasons I'm a big fan of FATE Core and Evil Hat in general.

Yeah I actually have the fluff version of most of those because I was an original kickstarter of Fate Core so got a ton of pdfs with their main ones.

Buut--

DriveThruRPG also has a bunch of fate supplements available on 'Pay What You Want'. Not sure how many of them might be helpful but they're handy to pick through. There's also a bunch of more traditional offerings (ie, ones you have to pay for) that have ideas. If anyone on your team is up to spending the money, I'd recommend Transhumanity's Fate (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/176939/Eclipse-Phase-Transhumanitys-Fate?sorttest=true&filters=0_0_44284_0_0) and Jadepunk (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/127543/Jadepunk-Tales-From-Kausao-City?filters=0_0_44284_0_0) for general ideas stealing, but your mileage may vary.

Those look interesting, I'll check them out.

Also, the Fate System Toolkit (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/119385/Fate-System-Toolkit?sorttest=true&filters=0_0_44284_0_0) is available for pay what you want pricing and I've found that one pretty handy in my own fate hacking efforts.

Yeah the FST is invaluable if not for what it does but how it makes you think about the ways you can tweak and alter Fate without breaking it.

[ixokai]

I wasn't originally going to open this up to discussion here, but I figure, why not. For anyone who is making a character in-game, input there will be valued more then input here.

If you are anti-Fate, I respect you being anti-Fate, but am not interested in your input then. You hate the system, that's your right, but your critique on something derived from something you hate I don't think is fundamentally... useful.

This is the very basic framework for how I am thinking of dealing with ships. I've spent the night reading various Fate books that deal with vehicles. I note, this system encapsulates only the engaging part of ships: stuff PC's interact with and do fun stuff with. Things like.. 'can FTL?' and 'cargo capacity?' are not engaging and will be relegated to attributes and not part of the system. As players spend their precious refresh for ships-- refresh which lets a player DO THINGS-- every point must directly lead to them being able to DO THINGS with their ships.

Every ship has:

Name - This is Star Wars. The name of your ship //matters//. Some might be Millennium Falcon, some might be the TIE Fighter TI-87Z. Each has a different impression based on the culture.

High Concept - 'Old Freighter Retrofit Continually'

One Aspect per Crew (PC or Droid) - This aspect is tied to the specific crew member, applies only when they are on board, and if they stop being crew, goes away. New crew add new aspect. Hire a cook? The 'Well Fed' aspect might be added. Who cares if a ship is Well Fed? Believe me I can think of situations I might invoke Well Fed to get something cool.

Systems (ship skills) - and the PC skills that affect their efficiency:

Hull (Mechanics)
Weapons (Mechanics, Shoot)
Engines (Mechanics, Pilot)
Shields (Slicing, Mechanics)
Sensors (Slicing, Pilot)
Comm Relay (Slicing)

Hull, Shields and Sensors will all have stress tracks. (Why sensors? A slicer can use the relay to put out crazy stuff to jam your signal) Damage done does shields until its gone, then hull, and once its gone, everyone better get their ass to an escape pod. Once Sensor Stress is gone, hit the FTL and get the hell out of there in a random direction.

Ships get 2 refresh per refresh used to buy the ship: refresh can buy stunts or extras.

The 'system pyramid' is capped at +1 the refresh cost of the ship.

A common basic frighter might have for 1 point, might have:
+2 Engines
+1 Hull, Relay

An effective, 2 cost cool ship might have:
+3 Weapons
+2 Shields, Engines
+1 Hull, Sensors, Relay

Big glaring hole: Exactly how 'PC skills affect ship systems in their efficiency'. I haven't even really gotten to that stage of deciding yet. I have this vague idea that the player rolls the appropriate skill and it adds a bonus like, Shifts (success over difficulty) / 2, to ship skill. But that's so off the cuff, whoa.

Also I can code a lot of stuff to make this all really easy to manage.

[DownWithOPP]

@ixokai Big glaring hole: Exactly how 'PC skills affect ship systems in their efficiency'.

If I'm reading it right, something like Well Fed you put in your post earlier?

The first two I thought of were both Star Trek homages - 'She Can't Take Anymore!' - Rolling mechanics to lessen repair time.

'I'm Giving Her All She's Got!' - Using this aspect temporarily increases a ship's speed by 1.5 times.

[ThatGuyThere]

@ixokai
Have you looked at Diaspora? It is Fate and while it is more traditional Sci Fi compared to the Space Opera of Starwars it could be well worth it to look at how they handle ships, as well as being a good read in general. It also has a chapter on social political conflicts which might be useful for things like the Rebels and the Empire trying to influence the populace of Corelia.

[ixokai]

@DownWithOPP said in Star Wars: Insurgency:

@ixokai Big glaring hole: Exactly how 'PC skills affect ship systems in their efficiency'.

If I'm reading it right, something like Well Fed you put in your post earlier?

The first two I thought of were both Star Trek homages - 'She Can't Take Anymore!' - Rolling mechanics to lessen repair time.

'I'm Giving Her All She's Got!' - Using this aspect temporarily increases a ship's speed by 1.5 times.

Oh, 'Well Fed' is an aspect and in Fate all aspects have the same mechanical effect. If you can creatively come up with a reason they make sense, you pay a Fate Point and invoke them after a roll, and either retroactively add +2 to your existing roll or you reroll your failed roll. The more varied the aspects that are available the easier it is to come up with an excuse to invoke them... and the more opportunities your GM has to compel them to give complications (and more fate points).

What i mean by 'affect ship systems', let me give you a scenario.

Let's say we have an expert pilot and a novice pilot in an identical ship. Both ships have Weapons at +3, Shields and Sensors at +2, and Relay, Hull and Engines at +1.

Those 'system skills' are skills, so the novice rolls Weapons vs the expert's Engines. He has a pretty solid chance of hitting him.

But the expert has Pilot of +5! And the novice has a Shoot of +2. Somehow the PC skills should impact the ship vs ship performance.

See, I believe that the quality of the ship should matter in a fight. But the quality of the people should matter too.

One thought I have (really, the simplist), is just to add them up. So the roll is the novice's ships Weapons + novice's Shoot against the expert's ship Engines + export's Pilot. This is a un-Fatey mechanic, but I like how it makes both matter. Granted, it might tend to have big numbers but in Fate all that really matters is the relative difference between results.

@ThatGuyThere said in Star Wars: Insurgency:

Have you looked at Diaspora? It is Fate and while it is more traditional Sci Fi compared to the Space Opera of Starwars it could be well worth it to look at how they handle ships, as well as being a good read in general. It also has a chapter on social political conflicts which might be useful for things like the Rebels and the Empire trying to influence the populace of Corelia.

I haven't, but I'll check it out. Thanks for the pointer!

[Kairos]

Well, since you put it up for comment...

Every ship has:

Name - This is Star Wars. The name of your ship //matters//. Some might be Millennium Falcon, some might be the TIE Fighter TI-87Z. Each has a different impression based on the culture.

High Concept - 'Old Freighter Retrofit Continually'

One Aspect per Crew (PC or Droid) - This aspect is tied to the specific crew member, applies only when they are on board, and if they stop being crew, goes away. New crew add new aspect. Hire a cook? The 'Well Fed' aspect might be added. Who cares if a ship is Well Fed? Believe me I can think of situations I might invoke Well Fed to get something cool.

Systems (ship skills) - and the PC skills that affect their efficiency:

Hull (Mechanics)
Weapons (Mechanics, Shoot)
Engines (Mechanics, Pilot)
Shields (Slicing, Mechanics)
Sensors (Slicing, Pilot)
Comm Relay (Slicing)

A skill line/tree/pyramid is as good a way for representing ship functions as any, really, so I think that should work just fine. You may, however, find that you need to modify how you represent them if the way players/characters interact with the ships changes. (More on that in a moment.)

Hull, Shields and Sensors will all have stress tracks. (Why sensors? A slicer can use the relay to put out crazy stuff to jam your signal) Damage done does shields until its gone, then hull, and once its gone, everyone better get their ass to an escape pod. Once Sensor Stress is gone, hit the FTL and get the hell out of there in a random direction.

Point of curiosity: What's the thought behind a sensor stress track? From your basic write up it looks like you're looking to represent things like jamming progress with it (with, presumably, consequences inflicted being something along the lines of 'sensors jammed', 'no communications' and similar?). It may be helpful to consider how. such damage is counteracted. With shields and hull damage the answer is generally 'reroute power / perform repair actions' to both remove stress and initiate consequence recovery. For counter jamming kind of things, that might possibly be less immediate than you want, especially if using standard consequence rules.

I might suggest looking at representing this kind of thing with aspects created via the create an advantage action since this would allow ships with counter jamming personnel and equipment to remove the negative 'status effects' in a manner that doesn't require consequence recovery. Additionally, as a lore matter if I'm remembering my Star Wars fu correctly by this point in 'history' navicomps and astromechs are the primary way of calculating hyperspace jumps in most places as opposed to the much older hyperspace beacon networks and that misjumps are generally a result of either not doing the calculations (jumping too quickly) or sustaining physical damage to those components.

Anyway, something to consider. The way you've got it should work just fine in my opinion, just wanted to present some options.

Ships get 2 refresh per refresh used to buy the ship: refresh can buy stunts or extras.

The 'system pyramid' is capped at +1 the refresh cost of the ship.

A common basic frighter might have for 1 point, might have:
+2 Engines
+1 Hull, Relay

An effective, 2 cost cool ship might have:
+3 Weapons
+2 Shields, Engines
+1 Hull, Sensors, Relay

It might be more crunch than you want but you might also consider capping the amount of refresh / the skill pyramid by its class or size or something similar. A given hull will only take so much tweaking and modification before there's just no more room / the engines aren't powerful enough / you've essentially rebuilt the whole thing into something else. Could be that's actually too 'simulation-y', since the point of going with Fate is generally to reduce crunch, but again, it's a thought.

Big glaring hole: Exactly how 'PC skills affect ship systems in their efficiency'. I haven't even really gotten to that stage of deciding yet. I have this vague idea that the player rolls the appropriate skill and it adds a bonus like, Shifts (success over difficulty) / 2, to ship skill. But that's so off the cuff, whoa.

This would be the big one to consider. How your characters interact with the ship will determine in large part what you need to represent on the ship mechanically. Off the top of my head I have a couple of suggestions. The simplest one that comes to mind is to use a ship's skills as a 'cap' on the relevant player skills. So you have an X-Wing pilot, for example, with a piloting skill of +4. That's great in his X-Wing which has an engines rating of +4, but stick him in a freighter with engines of +2 and he's not going to be able to use his skill to it's full potential. He's limited by the quality of the equipment he has. Conversely a farm boy whose only flight experience is in T-16's may have a piloting skill of +3. He can use all of that skill when he gets his shot at glory flying an X-Wing but he can't use the ship to it's full potential because he's just not quite that good.

Though, you know, your mileage with farm boys turned rebel pilots may vary.

If you really want a crewman to be able to improve the ship's performance, you might allow crewmen using a system at which their relevant skill is better than the ship's rating to either create advantages related to pushing the performance or to gain a +1 synergy bonus (similar to the 'teamwork' bonus given in some combined rolls). So in this case, a rebel pilot flying an X-Wing with engines at +4 and a piloting skill at +4 is using it to it's maximum potential. A pilot flying at +5 can push his system's performance because he's just that good, and gain a +1 synergy bonus to the roll, effectively letting him use his whole skill. A mythical pilot flying at +6 (if such a thing exists) is still only rolling at +5. He's got the same ability to push his ship to the limits, but in this case his ships' limits are holding him back. There's only so much the tech can do for him, despite his incredibly high level of skill.

You might consider also using a 'traits' system (ala Transhumanity's Fate) to append and clarify the ship's basic aspect. If you don't have access to that book or haven't read it, Traits are 'sub-aspects' that are attached to a given aspect and are invoked and compelled via that aspect, but serve as justification for doing things related to that trait. So you might give our example X-Wing a High Concept 'Red Squadron X-Wing' with the traits 'Starfighter', 'Maneuverable' and 'Hyperdrive'. Those traits all 'live on' the High Concept aspect and serve to justify things like flying through Beggars Canyon (because 'Starfighter' tells me it's small and 'Maneuverable' says it should be able to do this) whilst 'Hyperdrive' serves as justification for long range travel but can //also// be compelled (via the parent aspect) for it to break down or get damaged and strand the pilot. Again, this might be more crunch than you're looking for, but it's a suggestion.

Finally you'll need to decide how and when characters can make ships do things. I'm a big fan of Aether Sea's 'stations' mechanic for this. A ship has so many stations and those stations do specific things. A piloting station lets a crewman make piloting rolls and move the ship. A weapons station lets a crewman make attacks and so on and so forth. I am personally a fan of this because, one, it allows for another level of differentiation between ships and two it allows you to express certain concepts mechanically provided you have enough people. (Also I suppose, three, it gives players clear indications of how to use all those shiny stats the ship has).

So for example we have a highly modified YT-1300 freighter with big engines and some guns. It has 2 pilot stations, two gun stations, an electronic warfare station and perhaps one or two others. So in a given round of conflict it can move twice (or make two piloting rolls), shoot twice and jam someone's comms but only if it has at least five crew. If's being piloted by only one person... well it can move once. It's a big ship and even in the cockpit leaning over to flick that navicomp switch by the copilot's chair is a pain.

Anyway, slightly ramble-y there. Looks like you've got a solid foundation and some good ideas about how to proceed. Hope this wall of text was helpful in some way, if only to get you thinking 'no really, I don't like those ideas and these are the reasons'.

[TNP]

Gods no. Nothing that requires knowing what 'station' you are in. Nothing that needs a map to determine position in space or movement. Nothing that even vaguely approaches being a simulation. Roll the dice and be done with it.

edited to add: Thanks @Kairos for all the suggestions but I personally don't want any war game aspects. Simpler is better IMO.

[ixokai]

@Kairos said in Star Wars: Insurgency:

Hull, Shields and Sensors will all have stress tracks. (Why sensors? A slicer can use the relay to put out crazy stuff to jam your signal) Damage done does shields until its gone, then hull, and once its gone, everyone better get their ass to an escape pod. Once Sensor Stress is gone, hit the FTL and get the hell out of there in a random direction.

Point of curiosity: What's the thought behind a sensor stress track? From your basic write up it looks like you're looking to represent things like jamming progress with it (with, presumably, consequences inflicted being something along the lines of 'sensors jammed', 'no communications' and similar?). It may be helpful to consider how. such damage is counteracted. With shields and hull damage the answer is generally 'reroute power / perform repair actions' to both remove stress and initiate consequence recovery. For counter jamming kind of things, that might possibly be less immediate than you want, especially if using standard consequence rules.

This is too early to think too much about specific numbers, this is conceptualization. But, the point of a 'sensor stress track' is indeed jamming -- a way to sneak in without engaging.

The point of sensors/relay as a pairing is sorta to give a reason why its valuable to have someone with some slicing know-how in a ship. Not every ship needs it, but if your crew has one they aren't just there for show. I want as many different types of people to have meaningful interactions.

In theory if a slicer uses relay to send out some jamming signals, a slicer on the other side can use sensors to repair the sensors and counteract it. In theory. I might toss this track away but right now its what I'm considering.

Basically the sensor track determines how 'hardened' the sensors are in the target.

I might suggest looking at representing this kind of thing with aspects created via the create an advantage action since this would allow ships with counter jamming personnel and equipment to remove the negative 'status effects' in a manner that doesn't require consequence recovery.

I'm going to use advantages for various add-hoc effects but I want something a bit more meaningful to engage potential slicers.

Additionally, as a lore matter if I'm remembering my Star Wars fu correctly by this point in 'history' navicomps and astromechs are the primary way of calculating hyperspace jumps in most places as opposed to the much older hyperspace beacon networks and that misjumps are generally a result of either not doing the calculations (jumping too quickly) or sustaining physical damage to those components.

I intend on largely handwaving all things related to FTL as story elements.

Ships get 2 refresh per refresh used to buy the ship: refresh can buy stunts or extras.

The 'system pyramid' is capped at +1 the refresh cost of the ship.

A common basic frighter might have for 1 point, might have:
+2 Engines
+1 Hull, Relay

An effective, 2 cost cool ship might have:
+3 Weapons
+2 Shields, Engines
+1 Hull, Sensors, Relay

It might be more crunch than you want but you might also consider capping the amount of refresh / the skill pyramid by its class or size or something similar. A given hull will only take so much tweaking and modification before there's just no more room / the engines aren't powerful enough / you've essentially rebuilt the whole thing into something else. Could be that's actually too 'simulation-y', since the point of going with Fate is generally to reduce crunch, but again, it's a thought.

We'll handle this through judgement calls mostly. The chance of us approving any ship over 2 refresh is almost zero. Those are largely relegated to NPC ships, I expect.

Big glaring hole: Exactly how 'PC skills affect ship systems in their efficiency'. I haven't even really gotten to that stage of deciding yet. I have this vague idea that the player rolls the appropriate skill and it adds a bonus like, Shifts (success over difficulty) / 2, to ship skill. But that's so off the cuff, whoa.
The simplest one that comes to mind is to use a ship's skills as a 'cap' on the relevant player skills. So you have an X-Wing pilot, for example, with a piloting skill of +4. That's great in his X-Wing which has an engines rating of +4, but stick him in a freighter with engines of +2 and he's not going to be able to use his skill to it's full potential.

This is a good idea but as I have it the ship skill trees are MUCH smaller, partly because there are far fewer ship skills then there are player skills. I'm not sure how I'd balance pyramid size and refresh cost if ships were capable of having skills at like +4 or so.

If you really want a crewman to be able to improve the ship's performance, you might allow crewmen using a system at which their relevant skill is better than the ship's rating to either create advantages related to pushing the performance or to gain a +1 synergy bonus (similar to the 'teamwork' bonus given in some combined rolls). So in this case, a rebel pilot flying an X-Wing with engines at +4 and a piloting skill at +4 is using it to it's maximum potential. A pilot flying at +5 can push his system's performance because he's just that good, and gain a +1 synergy bonus to the roll, effectively letting him use his whole skill. A mythical pilot flying at +6 (if such a thing exists) is still only rolling at +5. He's got the same ability to push his ship to the limits, but in this case his ships' limits are holding him back. There's only so much the tech can do for him, despite his incredibly high level of skill.

Hm. I'll give this some thought.

You might consider also using a 'traits' system (ala Transhumanity's Fate) to append and clarify the ship's basic aspect. If you don't have access to that book or haven't read it, Traits are 'sub-aspects' that are attached to a given aspect and are invoked and compelled via that aspect, but serve as justification for doing things related to that trait. So you might give our example X-Wing a High Concept 'Red Squadron X-Wing' with the traits 'Starfighter', 'Maneuverable' and 'Hyperdrive'. Those traits all 'live on' the High Concept aspect and serve to justify things like flying through Beggars Canyon (because 'Starfighter' tells me it's small and 'Maneuverable' says it should be able to do this) whilst 'Hyperdrive' serves as justification for long range travel but can //also// be compelled (via the parent aspect) for it to break down or get damaged and strand the pilot. Again, this might be more crunch than you're looking for, but it's a suggestion.

I do intend on having something like this that I'm calling attributes, for things like 'hyperdrive' and such, but they're not things that are charged for, not really. Things like size, cargo hold, hyperdrive, etc, are just not things that I see as important in our system. In our system the only things that matter are what engage players in fun RP: everything else we handwave. A unarmored frighter and a shuttle might both cost 1 refresh: one's bigger then the other but we aren't charging more... why? Because it doesn't let the player DO anything really in a challenge.

What the two let a player do is move off planet at will on their own. That one lets someone RP buying cargo is just... story. Since we don't have money or anything like that, being detailed doesn't matter.

Now if you want to be able to fight, that's gonna cost more-- because that lets you do something the shuttle/frighter can't do.

More then that is probably sorta out of the scope of our ships. A cost 3 ship is going to be super rare outside of NPC owned ships, I think.

Finally you'll need to decide how and when characters can make ships do things. I'm a big fan of Aether Sea's 'stations' mechanic for this. A ship has so many stations and those stations do specific things. A piloting station lets a crewman make piloting rolls and move the ship. A weapons station lets a crewman make attacks and so on and so forth. I am personally a fan of this because, one, it allows for another level of differentiation between ships and two it allows you to express certain concepts mechanically provided you have enough people. (Also I suppose, three, it gives players clear indications of how to use all those shiny stats the ship has).

Yeah this I am not a fan of at all. No stations or anything like that. There will be a +ship system to help make rolls easier and track aspects/advantages/boosts on the ship and stuff like that, but nothing as technical as stations. A ship doesn't need more then one person to do everything: more crew just add advantages.

Thanks for the input!

[Misadventure]

http://www.rpgnow.com/product/175636/Deep-Dark-Blue--A-World-of-Adventure-for-Fate-Core also has some decent approaches to ships that bear looking at. Its pay what you want, so try it for free, and if you love it, buy it.

Can't hurt.

[WTFE]

@ixokai said in Star Wars: Insurgency:

… why its valuable to have someone with some slicing know-how in a ship.

In theory if a slicer uses relay to send out some jamming signals, a slicer on the other side can use sensors to repair the sensors and counteract it.

I'm going to use advantages for various add-hoc effects but I want something a bit more meaningful to engage potential slicers.

You keep using this word "slice" in its various forms.

WTF does it mean?

[Bobotron]

@WTFE
Star Wars term for computer hacking.

[WTFE]

Can't say I've ever heard it, although I did skip every movie past 'Jedi. When did it first get used?

[SG]

I think it started in the rpgs, which were then used as bibles for the novels.

[Sunny]

It is also used in the MMO.

[ixokai]

@WTFE said in Star Wars: Insurgency:

You keep using this word "slice" in its various forms.

WTF does it mean?

'Slicing' is 'hacking' or 'manipulating technology'. What RT-D2 does is slicing when he plugs in.

This isn't expressly said in the movies, but shows up in the games and the EU and other spaces.

[Bob]

I cut my teeth on both comic based and star wars games. The IDEA of FCs in the latter make me skeptical for all of the reasons already articulated but I'm the same guy who feels a good Star Wars game would utilize the Empire as an NPC or alt based black hat faction. A PC faction often becomes more concerned with winning than being a story mechanism. Some folks like to play Grand Moff Mary Sue and want to win or conduct space-fantasy world simulation instead of being a plot point so my way doesn't fit all.

The thing that struck me reading this is somone like Darth Vader whose primary character trait is to dominate every scene he's in. How cool might it be to have the chance to be the one who measures the judicious terror he's supposed to bring and inject that in small doses into story?

Pretty cool, I think, and hopefully interesting for everyone involved.

But, activity requirements? That's where it gets tricky. How do you make sure a character like that is not squatting but also not burning through his story potential by having to carry on forced conversations that violate what I would think is his appeal as a story device?

I'd probably restrict him too.

Good luck to you guys though FCs are fine in an environment that is more concerned with stories than a huge amount of connections.

I'd advocate for the position that most grizzled rebellious Corellians pretty much see Luke as a naive inexperienced hillbilly who got lucky. With the setting you've selected its really just our ooc bias that wants to put them on a pedestal.

Most of their super heroics have not occurred. Especially in a setting with more spacefantasy lasersword samurai than canon.

[TNP]

@Bob said in Star Wars: Insurgency:

The thing that struck me reading this is somone like Darth Vader whose primary character trait is to dominate every scene he's in.

Personally, I'm very dubious about Vader being a PC. I don't think he can be made using the same rules we've set up for character creation and still be Vader. It might be best to put him alongside Yoda and the Emperor.

But, activity requirements?

We'd probably be using the same activity requires we have on Marvel: 1963. 1 log a month minimum BUT don't think the bare minimum will be enough on a regular basis. It's not onerous.

I'd advocate for the position that most grizzled rebellious Corellians pretty much see Luke as a naive inexperienced hillbilly who got lucky. With the setting you've selected its really just our ooc bias that wants to put them on a pedestal.

Most of their super heroics have not occurred.

That is pretty much exactly correct and is how they're being played.

[Tennyson]

@TNP Thing is.. I tried SAGA. It turned into as much of a twinkery fest as any game system could be. D6 was bad only because ancient PCs could have craptons of dice everywhere but that wasn't the death. The death of d6 games was twofold. 1) Econ. Mechanized systems in play that made being the guy with the best gear the focus. 2) Factionalization. Inevitably, one side wanted to win. Because of that player animosity developed.

FATE.. well.. brings the focus back to the story. I'm interested in seeing how it all works out.