That Blasted Samophlange said:

Possibly not, but he does take an Alliance dudes sonic stun gun thing (after strangling him), and then fails to blow a door open with it - prompting the line 'Xi niao (cow sucking) high-tech Alliance crap!' and trying to use the gun as a club to bash open a door.

I guess the thing is, if you want people to treat equipment as disposable, it needs to be disposable. Easily replaced. Maybe you shouldn't have equipment that is just flat out 'better' than other equipment - just different. So pistols are good up close, carbines better at medium range and you want a rifle for long long range engagements.

 ErikB, there's a difference between Obi-Wan taking Qui-Gon's lightsaber and Obi-Wan going through dead Qui-Gon's pockets. Surely you can get what everyone else is trying to get across here? Most of your examples of "looting" are simply characters taking what they need to survive. 

The difference here is between cinematic greatness and metagaming cheesiness. In the quest for cinematic greatness, the players should be concerned with looking cool. John McClane picking up a machine gun is cool. John McClane rifling through all his enemies' clothes for spare change is not cool. An Ewok taking a fallen stormtrooper's blaster rifle is not "looting" in the sense that the OP is trying to address. Is that not obvious?

To the OP: If metagaming is the main pull for the players, just tell them that you're the GM and that you will take care of their players. Tell them to trust you to provide good things. "Are not gorgs sold for 7 wupiupi a piece? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Gamemaster. Fear not, therefore; your character is of more value than many gorgs."

I had a player in my Saga Edition game who, after every single encounter, told me "I loot all the bodies." I tried subtle hints: "all the gear on these guys is sub-par. Their armor is dingy and smells bad, their guns are rusty and extremely low-quality." But it didn't matter. It was always, "I loot the bodies." I told him, "Dude, I will make sure your character gets some good stuff. Don't make me count these worthless items against your total rewards and your max encumbrance." Still, it was "I loot the bodies." And any time he did, the rest of the party would get in on it. And they would tend to fight each other for who got what. Like, actually come to in-game blows on a regular basis over what items belonged to which player characters. So I got tired of it, and dropped the floor out from under them (they took too long in a burning building) and into a pit with a mutant rancor. 

Now, if you're in a gritty environment like an extended wilderness jaunt or something, I would understand and expect player characters to take everything useful off of a bounty hunter who tried to track them down and kill them, especially if they're facing days without guaranteed food, water, or shelter. I would highly discourage the same in an urban setting.

Edge's Obligation system is terrific for balancing looters out, like darkrose50 points out.

Edit: I feel like I should say, though, that I do narratively point out—and play up—cool items that are worth my players' attention or that I want them to take.

I can understand the concerns regarding the loot everything mentality.

Perhaps you could add the limited ammo trait to any weapon you do not want the players to pick up and add to their character sheets.

I find it rather telling that they [1] make the characters poor by granting such a low starting funds, [2] obligation may be raised by 10 for a mere 2,000 credits, [3] making it hard equipping a character such as a bounty hunter, and [4] many players find that looting equipment to sell is distasteful.
 

My solutions would be to [1] give the characters more starting funds, [2] make 10 obligation offer something like 10,000 credits, [3] allow for players to play well equipped bounty hunters (perhaps some equipment talents would help), and [4] mostly create a system where characters are not tempted to dig though the garbage for $0.05 deposits on aluminum cans and thus "solve" this “problem”. Perhaps some sort of wealth roll before the session representing jobs done off screen would help.

darkrose50 said:

I don't get it.

Why would you allow a "1st level"/starting character to become a "fully-kitted Bounty Hunter"?  Does it work like that in any other SW RPG?

I find much of the complaints on wealth stem from the fact that a starting character can't have a big super gun + armor + cool tech + equipment.  It's just not possible with the starting credits.

Yeap.  You're a starting character. 

Sorry for the double post.  I seem to be having the same conversation in two threads.  I got turned about.

There are several ideas I am presenting: [1] characters need credits or gear to fulfill certain archetypes, and [2] one way to get these credits is to loot the bodies.

Thusly one can either [1] provide a more adequate amount of starting credits (or ancillary access to items), or [2] provide additional ways to obtain items or credits in order to get a proper kit by means other than looting bodies.

One does not need to be powerful to have neat toys. I remember a game where I looted a fancy towel from an estate that I had a great deal many uses for. There are plenty of games where one starts as a gadgeteer, mad scientist, or powered armored hero without outclassing other characters. A hidden weapon in some armor, or something that looks cool can just be special effects.

We have a starting credit amount. I do not think it is adequate to fulfill many archetypes with a proper kit. We have a method to acquire additional credits. I do not think it is adequate to fulfill many archetypes. For example one cannot start with a cybernetic replacement or a droid. I find this to be a shame.

I much rather prefer the starting equipment WEG’s D6 afforded. A pilot started with an X-Wing and a Young Jedi started with an Astromech for the love of Gygax. A bountyhunter started out with a proper kit (two blasters, a thermal detonator, two knives, light armor, jet pack, two medpacks, and 1,000 credits). Characters had armor, weapons, and a 10’ pole. I do not remember anyone thinking that they were “overpowered” in the least. They had gear that fit their concept. This new version of a Star Wars RPG does not make that possible by the RAW and I find that to be a shame. Obligation should be a method to buy these items to fill out a concept.

Now having said that it is sometimes fun to start with a loincloth and an oak club. However I do not think that should be the gold standard.
 

No worries.  ;)

There are several ideas I am presenting: [1] characters need credits or gear to fulfill certain archetypes…

Why?

Also - why should a starting character get to blossom into their full-vision archetype from game 1?

Even with only a moderate Obligation increase, any starting PC can have a decent ranged or melee weapon, some simple armor, and a few knick-knacks.  That's far from the hyperbole you suggest.  ;)

 There are no railings in Star Wars. Bad guys die and fall into the bottomless pits. Problem solved. PCs using grenades? The weapon gets destroyed in the blast. Really, if you're sending Boba Fett with his cool gear after beginning characters, something's already gone wrong. They should be pitted initially against folks with slightly better gear, allowing for a natural progression of upgrading. Since it's a gritty game dealing with scum, most gang thugs aren't going to have more than a knife, blaster or dose of spice. I'd have fun with it and plant unsent love letters to the violent thug's mother or stormtrooper poetry. In general,. don't give your NPCs anything game breaking if it fell into the PCs' hands. 

Garrett

 If a GM and her players want to increase the starting credits I say go for it! But that should not be the default assumption. That is not the game FFG seems to be making. In the introduction, right after the welcome to the beta section the book sets out the tone of the game. On page 5 the book says right at the beginning:

Life isn't easy on the edge of galactic civilization. Money, food, and other necessities are often in short supply. 

The PCs are fringers not lords of finance. They have obligations to people they owe. These are not people whose lives and finances are well settled. These are rogues and risk takers looking to make a better life for themselves.

 Sound like the kind of guys who loot the bodies of the people they kill.

ErikB said:

They definitely could be! Or maybe they won't be. The only way to know is to play and find out!

As for looting, I think that is definitely a group dynamic issue. Talk to your players and see what kind of game they want. Remember this is a roleplaying game, and your players will come up with awesome ideas even the most seasoned GMs can't predict.

Even if you never put a blaster rifle-wielding adversary in their path, there is nothing to stop them from thinking, hmmm maybe we should go try to steal some from the planet where these rifles are made. And this is awesome because now you have a great adventure the PCs are already invested in. 

Scarcity creates desire which creates plans. The PCs are low on money/guns/food/etc. they will want more and they will make a plan to get more. Thank you PCs for planning an adventure for me. 

Fantasy Flight Games (FFG) Star Wars RPG House Rules posted else ware because this boards rules sucks eggs (can not edit posts).

http://www.truedungeon.com/forum?func=view&catid=8&id=163543#163543

Talk about it here:

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=318&efcid=46&efidt=735297

There's also a point to make about how characters don't necessarily need to loot every corpse that is found in the movies, and fits the character tones presented in the book.  

I present the case of Han Vs. Greedo

About to make good on a big sum of credits, Han is detained by Greedo.  As they talk, Han pulls of a slight of hand, to free his blaster, and shoots Greedo in cold blood.  He proceeds to throw some credits down, says "sorry about the mess"   Note, that this character living on the fringe, never stops to go through Greedo's vest, nor does he take his gun. 

The reason is because it's a lot cooler to do the above.  Also, story wise, Han has a big contract that could eliminate all his obligation.  Han has everything he needs.  A decent blaster, a damn cool ship, and a wookie life partner.    He's set, except for his debt, which is why he's taking a big job.  This is what the GM has to do, make it more beneficial to the players to follow the story, rather than nickel and dime every single item. 

That being said, it is very much an issue to discuss with the GM (or players) about the style of game.  A pseudo-post-apocalyptic game, it is certainly necessary and acceptable to take everything you can possibly have a use for.  But, a campaign closer to the feel of the movies, it's not needed. 

That Blasted Samophlange said:

I know it's probably not what you meant, but I got a huge chuckle out of this line. 

 I have many ideas about this subject.

As a GM i must regonise that if I send a threat at my PC's with a gooby bit of kit I must be OK with the pcs using it.  At the same time I can get hacked off with the loot everything mentality but I find often that after the players have got the gear they want the looting reflex dose did down especaly in a non D&D game when there is aqulantive diffrence betwheen a +1 & +5 amulet of natural armour not so much in EDE where blaster pistols are mostly the same.

As a player  for example in the game I played in on Thursday I started with a Hold out blaster and 3 bits of kit with 13 credits to my name so no upgrades for me or some armour in the game we picked upo a disrutpor rifle 3 or 4 blaster pistols and a carbine I have a blaster pistoal and a carbine.  I think that I am happy with the level of loot I have picked up and unless it is something that I know is worth a loot of money and investment in time to sell it I will probably not do much looting