Let players know when they might get conflict?

[Hysteria 106]

How do GMs handle players taking actions that might give them conflict? Do you let them know about it beforehand or let them take their actions and give them conflict afterwards? I usually let my players know what actions they might take that will give them conflict, but as a result my players really aren't tempted to do anything even slightly off the beaten path. Do other GMs face this problem, or am I just not giving my players the kind of difficult situations they need to be placed into as Force-users?

[HappyDaze 10,108]

I like to keep it transparent by telling them what the cost of their action will be. The temptation needs to be in what is gained by taking the action that grants conflict. It really should be the "quick and easy" option, and a manner of playing that avoids all conflict means that the PCs are making things really tough on themselves.

[vilainn6 306]

It is assumed by the rules that you tell your players they would received conflicts when they are about to do some conflicting action. You are probably not challenging them enought. Some good actions can lead to desastrous conséquences that most people would prefer to avoid.

Edited February 4, 2016 by vilainn6

[KommissarK 209]

The rules are actually quite specific that you should inform players that their action will generate conflict, but do not need to say how much it will generate.

 

Generally, Having seen how the dice results work, generating a few points of conflict is never really a "bad" thing. Players certainly shouldn't fall into the pit of thinking that they can never generate conflict; that just leads to boring character development. Some is fine, and battling with it is what is interesting.

Edited February 4, 2016 by KommissarK

[Donovan Morningfire 10,200]

Personally, I don't inform my players that an action will generate Conflict until afterwards.  One, doing this avoids a break in the flow of the narrative, especially for dramatic scenes.  It also cuts down on the second-guessing and "takebacks" of the player revising an action that would make sense for the character and situation simply to avoid earning Conflict.

 

But then again, my players are pretty cognizant that Star Wars runs on a black and white morality, and none of them have voiced concerns that I would assign Conflict for courses of action that warranted it.

 

Of course, it probably helps that for the AoR game in which I'm playing a Force user, I do the exact same thing for my character, even reminding the GM that actions my character undertakes in the course of the session are worth Conflict, and not trying to weasel my way out of Conflict by justifying the means to the end.  Since I'm holding myself to the exact (if possibly even stricter) standard that I hold my players to in regards to generating Conflict, there's not been an issue.

[Hondo Ohnaka 618]

Falling to the dark side shouldn't include an "i understand the risks" popup. The players should make their own decisions and live with the consequences instead of being GM'd through the whole movie like Anakin.

[Kael 1,865]

While I have a personal preference for Donovan's and Hondo's side I have sadly met few players that wouldn't make a big ordeal out of not being told that their about to earn Conflict . It's really sad to since I do feel that telling people breaks the narrative. 

[Donovan Morningfire 10,200]

While I have a personal preference for Donovan's and Hondo's side I have sadly met few players that wouldn't make a big ordeal out of not being told that their about to earn Conflict . It's really sad to since I do feel that telling people breaks the narrative. 

I'd say discuss this ahead of time with your players, and include the caveat that either during the next available break or after the session is over, you'd be willing to discuss why a course of action earned X amount of Conflict.

 

If the players are willing to table any objections to why they earned Conflict until a break in the action and thus give you an ample chance to explain why Conflict was generated, they may be far less prone to whining about it when the Conflict points are handed out during the game.  And if the player can provide a generally good reason that makes sense and doesn't sound too weasily to you, then by all means reduce how much Conflict was given.  But at the same time, if you think they are just trying to weasel their way out of Conflict, then stand firm in your decision; my long-standing guideline in terms of awarding DSPs since the WEG days has been "the more the player tries to justify an unjustifiable action, the more their character deserved that dark side point."

[Lordbiscuit 566]

Then in their cases it's probably best to assign those players conflict without telling them. However, only gift conflict in a manner that they act clearly in emotion.

 

That being said, if they can't handle the morality system, they shouldnt be playing a FnD campaign. Maturity to accept conflict and cultivate a strong rappore of tough (if not necessarily emotional) decisions. Can't handle the responsibility? Then either house rule it (if the group including the DM doesn't like morality) or don't play a force user. Non-force users arguably have much more interesting arcs in a campaign like tis.

[Hondo Ohnaka 618]

I get the distinct feeling making hard decisions and staying moral and rational in the face of danger is the whole point of roleplaying a jedi. Early warnings, aside from breaking narration and the space-time continuum, will get you to a point where the GM is playing everyone's characters.

[Daeglan 5,950]

Personally, I don't inform my players that an action will generate Conflict until afterwards.  One, doing this avoids a break in the flow of the narrative, especially for dramatic scenes.  It also cuts down on the second-guessing and "takebacks" of the player revising an action that would make sense for the character and situation simply to avoid earning Conflict.

 

But then again, my players are pretty cognizant that Star Wars runs on a black and white morality, and none of them have voiced concerns that I would assign Conflict for courses of action that warranted it.

 

Of course, it probably helps that for the AoR game in which I'm playing a Force user, I do the exact same thing for my character, even reminding the GM that actions my character undertakes in the course of the session are worth Conflict, and not trying to weasel my way out of Conflict by justifying the means to the end.  Since I'm holding myself to the exact (if possibly even stricter) standard that I hold my players to in regards to generating Conflict, there's not been an issue.

I think this should be your goal. But if your players are new to the genre and the black and white nature of star wars morality you might want to start by telling first with the goal of teaching the morality of star wars and eventually you wont have too. 

[Vondy 1,460]

I only pay close attention to conflict in story and character arcs where light-side dark-side morality is a key thematic element. In those cases, the players already know the theme is important - and often - what direction their characters are going. For instance, role-playing a character's fall to the dark side, or ultimate redemption. In other stories, I only worry about conflict if their is an egregious disregard for morality. Even Jedi have to make hard decisions, and not all decisions, even the right ones, are pleasant, especially in war. They're Jedi Knights, not Jedi Monks or Jedi Pacifists. If I think something is deeply dubious I'll just ask "is that consistent with truth, justice, and the Jedi way?" My players are pretty good about these things without the hint.

[Garran 485]

If someone is new to the system then it should always be flagged. Once everyone's familiar with the system it probably isn't necessary for anything that will obviously generate conflict. Situations and subjects that people might interpret differently should be brought up even then though, if only to ensure that everyone knows what to expect in future scenarios.

[Hondo Ohnaka 618]

In order for guilt or evil to be present, there has to be an element of free will. I'm sure a lawyer could phrase that much better but you get the picture.

 

A character who is being autopiloted through all important decisions (like Anakin in the prequels) isn't really good or evil. He is little more than a droid carrying out an instruction, since the intent came from elsewhere. Conflict points are often a chance for the character (and sometimes, the player) to grow and adapt, not something to be given out after an "are you sure" prompt. While absolute good is something that can't be attained, or roleplayed, you can approach it a little bit each time you fall and get back up again.

[Daeglan 5,950]

In order for guilt or evil to be present, there has to be an element of free will. I'm sure a lawyer could phrase that much better but you get the picture.

 

A character who is being autopiloted through all important decisions (like Anakin in the prequels) isn't really good or evil. He is little more than a droid carrying out an instruction, since the intent came from elsewhere. Conflict points are often a chance for the character (and sometimes, the player) to grow and adapt, not something to be given out after an "are you sure" prompt. While absolute good is something that can't be attained, or roleplayed, you can approach it a little bit each time you fall and get back up again.

True. But is a player is learning they should be given some guidance in the beginning so they understand how things work. Those training wheels should eventually come off. 

[Kael 1,865]

Then in their cases it's probably best to assign those players conflict without telling them. However, only gift conflict in a manner that they act clearly in emotion.

 

That being said, if they can't handle the morality system, they shouldnt be playing a FnD campaign. Maturity to accept conflict and cultivate a strong rappore of tough (if not necessarily emotional) decisions. Can't handle the responsibility? Then either house rule it (if the group including the DM doesn't like morality) or don't play a force user. Non-force users arguably have much more interesting arcs in a campaign like tis.

 

Given the number of Morality debates I've partaken in on this forum, there are apperently people who feel that this game shouldn't be about morality or black and white choices. I find it odd of course but ........

 

Though I tend to agree, if you're not into the morality aspect of playing a Force user then why play this game? I catch flack when I say that but ....

[ghost warlock 119]

Honestly, after playing with GMs who would assign the equivalent of conflict on a whim for essentially arbitrary reasons (d6 system), I'd prefer the GM be transparent with warning about conflict before the action is taken.

Breaking the narrative occasionally is just one of the consequences of letting the game be a cooperative story.

Furthermore, dictating conflict after the action isn't just heavy-handed GMing, it's also skipping over a crucial narrative device - temptation. By not telling your players which actions will result in conflict before they take those actions, you're neglecting the seduction of the dark side.

Characters are supposed to know which actions will result in conflict so they can be tempted, which is essentially the point of the morality mechanic.

Of course, so far as breaking the narrative, that's all in how you describe the event. Instead of just saying "that will earn conflict," tell your player that they can feel the power of the dark side, urging them to act in anger, passion, and violence.

How often they succomb to the seduction is the real test of who follows the light and who is ruled by the dark.

Edited February 5, 2016 by ghost warlock

[Donovan Morningfire 10,200]

ghost warlock,

I can understand the paranoia where it relates to the older Star Wars RPG (especially D6) where earning a DSP is a major deal.

 

But Conflict in this system isn't nearly as much of a punishment, provided the player doesn't go into outright villainy.  In fact, the entire Morality system was designed with the notion that PCs would be earning at least some amount of Conflict every session, and that with an average result on the d10 roll, their Morality was more likely to go up slightly than to go down.  It's been noted in multiple threads that if you want to play a dark sider, you either need to start with a 29 Morality or you have to go to nearly cartoonish levels of evil in order to fall.  As long as the PC doesn't do anything too blatantly evil or destructive, they shouldn't have to worry too much.  In short, if the act something that would get you into serious trouble with the law were you to be caught doing it, then it's probably going to be worth some Conflict.

 

The chart in the book has some pretty helpful guidelines about what actions would generate Conflict and how much.  If anything, I might suggest that new players have this chart available to them, with the fully explained caveat that said chart are only suggestions on how much Conflict to award for a given action, and the GM is at full liberty to assign Conflict for actions that aren't specifically covered on the chart.

[Lordbiscuit 566]

 

Then in their cases it's probably best to assign those players conflict without telling them. However, only gift conflict in a manner that they act clearly in emotion.

 

That being said, if they can't handle the morality system, they shouldnt be playing a FnD campaign. Maturity to accept conflict and cultivate a strong rappore of tough (if not necessarily emotional) decisions. Can't handle the responsibility? Then either house rule it (if the group including the DM doesn't like morality) or don't play a force user. Non-force users arguably have much more interesting arcs in a campaign like tis.

 

Given the number of Morality debates I've partaken in on this forum, there are apperently people who feel that this game shouldn't be about morality or black and white choices. I find it odd of course but ........

 

Though I tend to agree, if you're not into the morality aspect of playing a Force user then why play this game? I catch flack when I say that but ....

 

 

Indeed, I mean I can see it both ways. Some people just want to play as the guy with the glow stick that does awesome martial arts and the morality isn't always necessarily important in the grand scheme of the adventure. Just personally the morality system is the "easy" way of managing a PC's alignment without the GM having to be too overly involved. 

Personally I play into the morality system and I never allow it to be a factor in my characters choices, especially appropriate as this particular character is not a Jedi, many of his decisions are formed based on the heat of the moment, thus at this moment of time he's still hovering around the 50ish mark as sometimes he rises and other times he falls (one particlar low being a time where he 'stole' a shuttle after 'buying' it for a cutthroat price. Only finding out afterwards that the guys fighting to take it over were it's original owners. One particular high being the time he finally caught up to the Jedi who stole the jewel during a second hiest, after she had been 'disarmed' by an inquisitor, and not only chose not to enact a premature revenge but administered a stim to stabilise her before going after him.) and that's awesome as I like being accountable for my actions.

It's not so much I want him to fall but rather I like using it as a an additional bit of info as to where he stands. People who don't want to be held account for their actions really shouldn't play a FnD campaign (yes chaotic evil characters out there, I'm looking at you), I'm. It's wrong to think of morality and consequences for the character as a stick to beat the player with but a carrot.

Edited February 5, 2016 by Lordbiscuit

[Dark Bunny Lord 239]

I don't warn my players I just hand it out when appropriate. I feel warning them not only interrupts narrative but it causes players to just not roleplay the way they want to. I mean it's not hard to learn, if your Jedi starts doing conflict earning actions they're going to learn what causes those and if they want to remain light side attempt to avoid them in the future, this fits the narrative of an up and coming force user just learning about the force quite well I think as they're bound to stumble at first. Besides its not as if earning some conflict is a horrible thing you can't recover from nor is being dark side even really that punishing. If anything it's far more difficult to become dark side than light unless you're actively attempting to.

As far as temptation goes that's an easy one to solve without warning of conflict, just present players with immoral choices that will either make a job/task easier or grant them credits/power. Players aren't stupid for the most part and you shouldn't have to hold their hand like a toddler the entire time. I think at best if they're unfamiliar with Jedi lore and thus behavior giving them a quick run down of what is likely to earn conflict and how much should be more than enough.

But each their own, the important part is having fun and the best way to figure out is talking to your players, I'm just not a fan of stopping a player and going "if you do this this will happen" after they've already said they'd do it as it feels to metagamey to me. I'd rather just have my players focus on doing what they're character would do and letting the results fall where they may to avoid breaking immersion.

The one exception id make for this would be if one player stopped themself or someone else and made a lore Jedi skill check to think of the Jedi code and what it would garner before doing something. Assuming it was successful I'd allow giving knowledge of what conflict that would resort in.

Edited February 5, 2016 by Dark Bunny Lord

[Vondy 1,460]

 

 

Then in their cases it's probably best to assign those players conflict without telling them. However, only gift conflict in a manner that they act clearly in emotion.

 

That being said, if they can't handle the morality system, they shouldnt be playing a FnD campaign. Maturity to accept conflict and cultivate a strong rappore of tough (if not necessarily emotional) decisions. Can't handle the responsibility? Then either house rule it (if the group including the DM doesn't like morality) or don't play a force user. Non-force users arguably have much more interesting arcs in a campaign like tis.

 

Given the number of Morality debates I've partaken in on this forum, there are apperently people who feel that this game shouldn't be about morality or black and white choices. I find it odd of course but ........

 

Though I tend to agree, if you're not into the morality aspect of playing a Force user then why play this game? I catch flack when I say that but ....

 

 

Indeed, I mean I can see it both ways. Some people just want to play as the guy with the glow stick that does awesome martial arts and the morality isn't always necessarily important in the grand scheme of the adventure. Just personally the morality system is the "easy" way of managing a PC's alignment without the GM having to be too overly involved. 

Personally I play into the morality system and I never allow it to be a factor in my characters choices, especially appropriate as this particular character is not a Jedi, many of his decisions are formed based on the heat of the moment, thus at this moment of time he's still hovering around the 50ish mark as sometimes he rises and other times he falls (one particlar low being a time where he 'stole' a shuttle after 'buying' it for a cutthroat price. Only finding out afterwards that the guys fighting to take it over were it's original owners. One particular high being the time he finally caught up to the Jedi who stole the jewel during a second hiest, after she had been 'disarmed' by an inquisitor, and not only chose not to enact a premature revenge but administered a stim to stabilise her before going after him.) and that's awesome as I like being accountable for my actions.

It's not so much I want him to fall but rather I like using it as a an additional bit of info as to where he stands. People who don't want to be held account for their actions really shouldn't play a FnD campaign (yes chaotic evil characters out there, I'm looking at you), I'm. It's wrong to think of morality and consequences for the character as a stick to beat the player with but a carrot.

 

 

 

Then in their cases it's probably best to assign those players conflict without telling them. However, only gift conflict in a manner that they act clearly in emotion.

 

That being said, if they can't handle the morality system, they shouldnt be playing a FnD campaign. Maturity to accept conflict and cultivate a strong rappore of tough (if not necessarily emotional) decisions. Can't handle the responsibility? Then either house rule it (if the group including the DM doesn't like morality) or don't play a force user. Non-force users arguably have much more interesting arcs in a campaign like tis.

 

 

 

Though I tend to agree, if you're not into the morality aspect of playing a Force user then why play this game? 

 

Because ninja-leaping psychics with laser swords rock.

[Donovan Morningfire 10,200]

An idea for a compromise...

 

When the player (especially a new one) is about to take an action that will generate Conflict, just simply tell them "if you do this thing, you're going to earn Conflict" without including the amount of Conflict that would be earned.  This way, the player has some advance warning that they're about to do a bad thing, but are less likely to metagame their character's actions since they don't know how much Conflict would be earned until after the act has been completed.

 

However, once the players have gotten a feel for what sorts of actions would or wouldn't generate Conflict, dispense with the warnings, but making sure to inform the players that you won't be warning them going forward.

[kaosoe 7,573]

I see both side, but I'm in the camp of telling them ahead of time if they'll earn conflict. For my table, softens the blow and helps prevent arguments. But as I said, I completely understand why others don't and that's fair too.

[Cynthorus 52]

I went over the basics of why and when I'll hand out conflict during my groups first session; these included the use of the dark side pips, fear tactics, murder or harming innocents; I also explained that to a degree certain actions and the motivation behind them will lead to conflict or not (such as no conflict for stealing food from the Empire to feed a family but yes conflict for stealing food from a starving family). I also tend to write or let them come up with alternative ways to solve a situation without resorting to the quick and easy route (not that I always tell them what that solution is).

As such I don't warn them if they do something that falls into the basics I gave them.

However as with all players they can throw the odd curveball now and then and if it's really left field I'll give them a warning that the action will generate conflict but never how much.

[LadySkywalker 225]

I get the distinct feeling making hard decisions and staying moral and rational in the face of danger is the whole point of roleplaying a jedi. Early warnings, aside from breaking narration and the space-time continuum, will get you to a point where the GM is playing everyone's characters.

 

I agree entirely. Being a Jedi, or light-sider, should never be easy; and if the Jedi of the galaxy never had a disembodied voice warning them that they're about to do something questionable, then why should the PCs?

 

Also, you could argue that it's a learning curve: over time, a character should be able to learn right from wrong based on past experiences. If she can't, then they're somewhat lacking in guidance or restraint. Couple that with the fact that their companions may be able to point out how far their friend is falling and try to intervene...