Trying to Describe "Narrative-Style Gameplay" to a Current Player in Real-World Terms

[The-Magic-Sword]

"What sparked our conversation last week was him getting hyper-focused (to an extreme degree) on how to make money so I can make my character better."

My reading is that it doesn't seem that character motivation is the chief concern for the player. It's likely more of a post-hoc rationalization of the player's own goals, hence the reason why innerdude likely asked the aformentioned question about conflating the player's goals with the character's.

I think the distinction between them really is here:

But the reasons for my . . . pique, I guess, are largely aesthetic preference. I am flat-out DONE with gameplay that focuses on "How do I get my next bonus to stat and my next +2 sword and my next +2 AC bonus so I can be awesome?!" Go play BG3 or Skyrim, away from my table, if that's your thing.

In that the GM is seeing the mercenary ethos as anti-narrative, a fully gamist conceit, where the player is seeing the mercenary ethos as copacetic with the game's narrative about mercenary types.

But for Edge of the Empire, I think P might actually be kind of right, its a game about navigating the Star Wars underworld-- which is famously full of weirdoes pulling off heists and other shady shenanigans to make money; and spending it on fast ships, exotic weapons, and so forth.

Taking the cybernetics and selling them for cash feels like something that would absolutely happen on say, The Mandalorian, probably with someone glancing at the corpses and then a cutaway to some Watto type handing Din money.

Like even compare the Publisher Summary for Edge to the one for Age:

Participate in grim and gritty adventures in places where morality is gray and nothing is certain. Ply your trade as a smuggler in the Outer Rim, collect bounties on the scum that live in the shadows of Coruscant, or try to establish a new colony on a planet beneath the Empire's notice.

and

Take on the sinister Galactic Empire as a member of the Rebel Alliance. Wage guerrilla warfare across the Star Wars galaxy as a soldier, or provide crucial intelligence to the Rebels as a cunning spy. Face down legions of stormtroopers, steal secret plans and restricted codes, and stay on target in the fight against the ultimate power in the universe. No matter what role in the Rebellion you take, the fate of the galaxy rests in your hands.

Not only are both games telegraphing simulation-content, but Edge seems like it'd be pretty cool with stripping corpses of their cybernetics for money and looking for a big job to make bank and get upgrades, nor does it have the copy Age of Rebellion has on being heroic and self-sacrificing, it even wants morality to be gray.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Hmmm, not so much trying to "redesign" the character, so much as help the player find better alignment with the goals of the campaign. The player has struggled at times with what I perceive to be remnants of "trad" gameplay sensibilities that run counter to the "platonic ideal" of how FFG Star Wars runs.

If player wants to continue to be motivated solely by the "leveling progression treadmill," I mean, sure . . . he's free to do so. FFG Star Wars isn't anywhere close to being the best model for that, but I guess it's not the worst either.



The idea is that if you shift intrinsic character motivation, you shift the way the character interfaces with the game world, and you shift the player's thought process for how to embed mechanics into the fictional positions and results. One of things "trad" players struggle with, in my experience with FFG, is that they don't know how to interpret Advantage or Threat as anything other than direct mechanical representations. So they quickly tire of it, or it gets boring as "same old, same old."

The entire second axis of resolution (Advantage / Threat) is a cue to the player to think about fictional positioning at least as much, if not more than the numbers. Advantage / Threat is very frequently best served by inserting "quantum gamestate" elements into the mix. So you rolled an extra 4 advantage this turn? Great! I don't know what that means yet, but it will definitely factor in against future stuff that's about to happen.

It's actually really fun for both players and GM to look back at something that happens and go, "Remember when you rolled that extra 4 advantage two turns ago? Well guess what---here's the cool thing you get from that."




In a sense I get where you're coming from, because EotE is supposed to be the "scum and villainy" scoundrel thing. But Star Wars has just so many residual assumptions baked into the setting meta, and the structure of the game itself --- Triumph vs. Despair, Advantage vs. Threat, the Force die, Obligation -- that all point to this idea that characters are connected to the game world in ways that go beyond pure mercenary intent.




Well, first off, there is no beskar armor in the core EotE rulebook. If he wanted to set himself off on a path to find some already existent (no matter how rare) set of armor already documented in the book, sure, whatever.

But the whole idea of beskar goes beyond mere progression. It's going from, "I want to improve my character," to, "I want to use my knowledge of the setting meta to force the GM to houserule something whole cloth that isn't in the book, and not only is it not in the book, it basically is supposed to narratively make me impervious to damage, because RAWR MOAR POWER FOR ME, LOLZ!"

Yeah. No offense, but screw that crap. I will tell a player to cut that out, vocally, forcibly, and without concern for their feelings. That's not the game I want to run, and I will tell them to walk away if they insist on continuing with it.

Yeah, I actually just wrote a section of post comparing Edge's tone to Rebellion's to raise these concerns, but it seems like you're projecting a bit onto Edge to try and make it more focused on Forge-esque Narrative than it is, none of those things you mentioned really work against what your player is doing, and they're supposed to react to them organically, not use them to signal a different frame of mind.

What I said about Beskar was taking for granted that it was somewhere in there, but I guess a lot of our lore about Beskar is more recent than the game, but that's a whole seperate conversation about homebrewing or splatbooks or whatever-- my point stands if they're powergaming with things in the rulebooks (which can be pretty extensive, I remember digging up stuff with stats for like Clone Wars tech and what-not.)

Edit: Beskar is evidently in the rules of the game, and is meant to be represented by the mechanical benefits of Cortosis as per the design team.

I'm getting the sense that you might need to work on some things internally, when it comes to like, your ability to respect the gaming style of others though.

 

[innerdude]

I'm getting the sense that you might need to work on some things internally, when it comes to like, your ability to respect the gaming style of others though.

Well . . . perhaps. But perhaps not.

Thing of it is, I gave them the choice when we started which version of Star Wars to run --- Classic D6 (2e Revised), D20 Saga Edition, Edge of the Empire, or house-ruled Savage Worlds.

Two of the five players wanted EotE, hands down, because they like that it bridges "trad" and "narrative." One player wanted D6, one player wanted house-ruled Savage Worlds. The player in question claimed not to care, "I just love the Star Wars universe, I'll play whatever."

We collectively decided on EotE. And I definitely warned the entire group up front, "This is NOT fully a traditional game like you're used to. This game is going to push you toward making more narrative-focused choices. Gameplay resolution isn't going to be as granular as you're used to with D&D. Certain aspects are more loosely defined, and we're going to collaborate on scene structures and the narrative dice results. Character progression is somewhat flatter than maybe you're used to."

I also conveyed at several points that I wanted the group to try to work with the system on its merits.

This is only my second time running EotE, so I'm not anywhere close to being an expert on the gear system, but it was my impression that the core mechanic is fairly resilient against an occasional +1 gear boost here and there. So I have no problem with the players using stuff in the core rules that involves gear. I was very, very generous in their starting gear allowance. (And that fact mildly irks me occasionally when this player goes on about gear. Like, dude, I gave you waaaaay better than average starting gear, but that just isn't enough, huh?)

But anyway, at least three of us actively chose EotE because it specifically offered something different than most other "traditional" games. Yet because I'm gently prodding this specific player to perhaps consider a different play perspective, I'm simply not "respecting the player's desires"?

shrugs Can't win them all, I guess.

And I should clarify, the player in question is having fun and enjoying himself. It's just that he's felt some of his own internal tension at times because he's applying a less-than-ideal mindset to the game's core assumptions and my preferred playstyle. The player in question also is BY FAR the one most prone to metagaming. The whole "beskar armor" thing is just one in a series of attempts by the player to use his voluminous knowledge of the Star Wars universe to create advantages for the party. To the point that another player has called him out on it two or three times in just the last four or five sessions. "Dude, quit metagaming."

 

[Umbran]

and I'd appreciate if you didn't demean yourself further by suggesting that kind of roleplaying which I occasionally enjoy is somehow so wrong as to be an insult.

Mod Note:
If you felt poorly about what he said, responding in kind... is the Sith way to deal with it, shall we say?

Folks, please stay respectful. Thanks.

 

[innerdude]

Yeah, I actually just wrote a section of post comparing Edge's tone to Rebellion's to raise these concerns, but it seems like you're projecting a bit onto Edge to try and make it more focused on Forge-esque Narrative than it is, none of those things you mentioned really work against what your player is doing, and they're supposed to react to them organically, not use them to signal a different frame of mind.

I'm not running this like it's Dungeon World or Ironsworn. I'm using a published module, for heaven's sake, which I haven't done in 15 years since I ran the first Runelords packet for Pathfinder 1.

It's clear you don't see the FFG system in the same light I do. All good.

 

[aramis erak]

I'm not running this like it's Dungeon World or Ironsworn. I'm using a published module, for heaven's sake, which I haven't done in 15 years since I ran the first Runelords packet for Pathfinder 1.

It's clear you don't see the FFG system in the same light I do. All good.

It's not clear whether you see what's actually in the rulebook...
It's not a generic Star Wars game; it's Firefly in the Star Wars universe. Things don't go smooth. Stuff matters, quite a bit.

I also conveyed at several points that I wanted the group to try to work with the system on its merits.

This is only my second time running EotE, so I'm not anywhere close to being an expert on the gear system, but it was my impression that the core mechanic is fairly resilient against an occasional +1 gear boost here and there.

That's not a safe assumption. Much of the gear has surprisingly good effects.
Only one tech bit feels underpowered: Shields. Shields in the game are really quite mild, especially given that a 3 or 4 defense in an arc is hard to get to. It is one area I've houseruled: I count Shields as adding as much soak as they add defense.

So I have no problem with the players using stuff in the core rules that involves gear. I was very, very generous in their starting gear allowance. (And that fact mildly irks me occasionally when this player goes on about gear. Like, dude, I gave you waaaaay better than average starting gear, but that just isn't enough, huh?)

Consider this: each expansion adds as much new equipment as it does each [planetary] vehicles and ships, and usually just a hair shy of new talent texts. Most of them run about as 1/2 as much new gear as the corebooks have. Gear is very clearly, from the line level, a MAJOR intended advancement factor.

Also, being generous with starting cash is sabotaging the core Edge playloop of being broke and needing to meet obligations while also making enough to keep going...

If you're wanting to have a more heroic bunch, you picked the wrong core game in the lineup; Age of Rebellion is focused upon Duty, and positive reword, while in Edge. Obligation is what drives you off-mission...and the missions are not likely to be terribly ethical in Edge, anyway.

Note also, Edge focuses on smuggling, not merchanting. The value of moving legal goods from place to place is barely enough to keep going; smuggling is how one gets better gear, better ships, and better armor.

The one thing I've had to teach a few players is that getting caught with an E5 or E11 is not just going to cause a problem; Clone Troopers or StormTroopers are going to take that as grounds to shoot on sight. Looting troopers leads to instant hostilities and calling in the backups. In numbers, especially reinforcements, a 6 man fireteam of StormTroopers is rolling 4 yellow to hit, and can turn up to 10 advantage into 5 additional hits...

Likewise, if you take down a notable and loot their armor and weapons, you also suddenly acquire their enemies and most of their allies turn to be your enemies, too. It's grounds to add obligation. At least if they don't work hard to depersonalize the gear.

You don't need to directly leverage the player; when they do something that would cause enemies, add to obligation (Enemies)... If they don't worry about it... they will when it brings the group total over 100 and NO ONE can advance by any means other than gear.

I'll note as well: A mixed cores game can be quite fun, but works best for me when base Ob is 0+points over in Char Gen, or start as an edge game, but add duty when they join a side.

 

[Piperken]

I largely concur with most others' assessment that the kerfuffle feels more centered on differences between the player's preferred style and what OP had outlined to the group as they were deciding on a particular Star Wars game.

...The player in question has a long, long history of RPG play but almost exclusively in D&D 3 and old-school White Wolf (VtM + VtR). And there are times when I can just watch him getting frustrated at some of the more "narrative-style" sensibilities that live behind FFG Star Wars / Genesys as a system.

What sparked our conversation last week was him getting hyper-focused (to an extreme degree) on how to make money so I can make my character better. And if you've played the FFG Star Wars system, you know that while there is a decent and fun gear mini-game built in, with extensive upgrades and component building, etc., it's really just a fun nice-to-have. It's not a core part of the gameplay loop in any particular sense, other than it does give the residual min-maxers something to idle on from time to time...

This was wild for me to read; while my D&D play isn't seated in 3E (it's slightly earlier, but not much), and I also played old-school White Wolf as well, I had almost the complete opposite development as a player.

While both systems center, "...I want my character to get better. Better gear means my character gets better...Well [better at] everything I guess," gaining power in terms of mechanics (despite old school WW games, not being great in design) ; it was my exposure to oWoD that really opened up the ideas of narrative-based rp to me in a very positive way.

From how it's described, I'm surprised this player did not take to what was a primary hallmark in those games; everybody's experience in games can be different.

It is worth complementing that OP was able to have this frank conversation, immediately with the player, in an open way; most of the time discussions like this can go sideways and it breaks up tables to everyone's loss.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

We collectively decided on EotE. And I definitely warned the entire group up front, "This is NOT fully a traditional game like you're used to. This game is going to push you toward making more narrative-focused choices. Gameplay resolution isn't going to be as granular as you're used to with D&D. Certain aspects are more loosely defined, and we're going to collaborate on scene structures and the narrative dice results. Character progression is somewhat flatter than maybe you're used to."

Gameplay resolution in Star Wars FFG is more granular than in DND.

This is, to be clear, a game that has a soak stat for how many points of damage a given creature can absorb, a pierce weapon quality to get around soak, and you can use a shield to produce setback rolls to accuracy seperate from that damage reduction, and encourages you to say, make it out of Cortosis so it can't be sundered by lightsabers. It has 'Talents' that let you stack 'Incidental Actions' in combat to effect powergame combos that circumvent action economy, let you make stat substitutions to make sure you make checks with your best stat, and variously improve your defenses, and other stats in all kinds of different contests.

Just look at some of this stuff, this is not a loosely defined game, this is some serious crunch.

I can see why your player wants credits, all the ships have prices and customization hardpoints they can further spend to customize it.

Edit: sorry have to add one more example, you're discussing how having their mind on money and upgrades is a distraction from the game, the game is telling him his Scoundrel can circumvent the rarity of goods on illegal goods by taking a stacking talent that appears a bunch of times in a character advancement tree, paying an additional 50% of the price per reduction level of the rarity.

Seriously, look at the tree:

 

[Aldarc]

Gameplay resolution in Star Wars FFG is more granular than in DND.

This is, to be clear, a game that has a soak stat for how many points of damage a given creature can absorb, a pierce weapon quality to get around soak, and you can use a shield to produce setback rolls to accuracy seperate from that damage reduction, and encourages you to say, make it out of Cortosis so it can't be sundered by lightsabers. It has 'Talents' that let you stack 'Incidental Actions' in combat to effect powergame combos that circumvent action economy, let you make stat substitutions to make sure you make checks with your best stat, and variously improve your defenses, and other stats in all kinds of different contests.

Just look at some of this stuff, this is not a loosely defined game, this is some serious crunch.

I can see why your player wants credits, all the ships have prices and customization hardpoints they can further spend to customize it.

Edit: sorry have to add one more example, you're discussing how having their mind on money and upgrades is a distraction from the game, the game is telling him his Scoundrel can circumvent the rarity of goods on illegal goods by taking a stacking talent that appears a bunch of times in a character advancement tree, paying an additional 50% of the price per reduction level of the rarity.

Seriously, look at the tree:
View attachment 384616

So did you come here to repeatedly tell Innerdude that he is running Edge of the Empire wrong?

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

So did you come here to repeatedly tell Innerdude that he is running Edge of the Empire wrong?

Enough, its already gotten us red text.