Ships and Stun Setting

[cassusaevum]

Two unrelated things...

Ships
I currently have Ship set up as an Edge.  This was originally to afford multiple ships if the group wanted to go that way.  Since the consensus seems to be not that, I'm going to eliminate it as an Edge.  Instead, the default position will be that the players are equal shareholders in a ship.  If you guys want to go a different route than that, let me know.

Stun
I struggle with Stun in star wars.  On the one hand, it's iconic.  On the other hand, it tends to be described as an almost insta-neutralize in most star wars rpgs.  It tends to feel more powerful than regular blasters.  Trying to find the way to balance it.  I'd like feedback on which of the two models you guys would prefer:

1. The Stun setting on blasters is a plot thing.  We don't need to worry about rules for it and we all agree at the table that we're not going to "switch to stun."

2. Stun on a blaster uses the Stunned condition in Star Wars.  If you get hit, you make a vigor check.  Fail and your stunned.  If you're hit with a raise, you make the Vigor check at -2.  Stun as a condition sucks, but can go away in a round or two.  If we go this route, the Stun setting will be at most half the range of the regular weapon.

[gamedave]

Ships
That's my preferred approach.

Stun
Stun settings on blasters isn't quite as problematic in Star Wars RPGs as balancing Force users - but it's not all that far behind. It's a big mess, particularly since in 9 movies, I think we only ever see it used once. I like the Vigor check or become Stunned. It makes it a viable use if you really want to incapacitate someone, but at the same time, it makes sense why you'd normally just shoot for regular damage. Based on the visual effect in Star Wars, I'd suggest a 9" range (basically the same as a Cone Template).

[fenris]

I like the group ship idea. I don't have a strong opinion either way on stuns, largely due to my lack of experience in the system.