InOzWeTrust, it sounds like you have quite a challenge on your hands.

If the players are arguing a lot, refusing to accept your judgment as GM on the difficulty of the tasks you have defined, then I'd say the bigger issue is that it doesn't sound like they are all fully vested in your position as GM of the game.

The players need to trust in you as GM that you're going to provide a fun game for them. That some tasks will be easy and some will be difficult for your characters, but that most of all you're all working together to have a fun Star Wars adventure.

I'm afraid I don't have much further to offer than just to suggest having a frank discussion with your players. It may be that, as GMs themselves, they feel compelled to adjudicate and to act as rules lawyer.

You need to let them know that if you're playing in THEIR game, you'll be respectful of the work they've done and the effort they're devoting, and that you expect the same from them while you are the GM. As GM you are the host of the party and the director of the film. Edge of the Empire is very collaborative, but in order to collaborate everyone must be working together.

How best to express that to your friends is something only you can judge.

Was it just that one player complaining or was it everyone?

It seemed like everything was fairly reasonable, so I can only assume the frustration was just a build-up of the player just having horrible luck - which can be understandable, but still - nothing worth starting a big argument over since it's not like anything was really lost (valuable item, player death, horribly failing a mission).

Just the one. The one who agrees most of the time for my logic also has the most fervent responses when he disagrees or feels that something is amiss.

I guess you'll need to be more clear with them, although if they are experienced GMs you shouldn't have to be. Did you get a chance eventually to explain your reasoning? I would think that would head off further issues.

Not really no. I've taken it upon myself to mantra some GM commandments to hold myself to and I intend to paraphrase my previous post about narrative results not success versus failure exclusively or even in some cases where failure is impossible, you cannot miss a stationary target at short range that isn't an active combatant.

One was Athletics checks to climb down a mountainside in several steps. I made the first one Hard, because I thought it would reflect the challenge of the climb. Everybody failed and I didn't have good narration to make that interesting, so I lessened the difficulty and moved on.

Gawd, I wish I had your troubles. A perfect example of my woes came up in just last night's session. I had this awesome little side encounter I wrote that had some great long term benefits for the group - if they only first dealt with the up-front "difficulties". All it took was for a single one of the six PCs to fail a Hard check. That would have been enough impetus to draw them into the encounter. I figured when I wrote it out, at least 1 in 6 PCs is going fail a Hard skill check. You'd think, right? But nope. All successes. And in glorious fashion around the table, as usual. Sigh.

So much for spending a couple hours writing up the encounter, and the opposition's statblocks, as they promptly moved on with an oblivious "nothankyou".

One was Athletics checks to climb down a mountainside in several steps. I made the first one Hard, because I thought it would reflect the challenge of the climb. Everybody failed and I didn't have good narration to make that interesting, so I lessened the difficulty and moved on.

Gawd, I wish I had your troubles. A perfect example of my woes came up in just last night's session. I had this awesome little side encounter I wrote that had some great long term benefits for the group - if they only first dealt with the up-front "difficulties". All it took was for a single one of the six PCs to fail a Hard check. That would have been enough impetus to draw them into the encounter. I figured when I wrote it out, at least 1 in 6 PCs is going fail a Hard skill check. You'd think, right? But nope. All successes. And in glorious fashion around the table, as usual. Sigh.

So much for spending a couple hours writing up the encounter, and the opposition's statblocks, as they promptly moved on with an oblivious "nothankyou".

If I had a planned encounter that hinged on a failed roll to start it, I wouldn't bother making the roll. Instead, I'd flip a destiny point in their favor, describe their "Han steps on branch" moment, and get the encounter rolling.

If I had a planned encounter that hinged on a failed roll to start it, I wouldn't bother making the roll. Instead, I'd flip a destiny point in their favor, describe their "Han steps on branch" moment, and get the encounter rolling.

I must confess to being a bit surprised that the resident "There needs to be a rule for everything", "Narrative is not a mechanic" guy is advocating such a position.

Regardless, the group could have continued to bite and engage the scenario as presented, but chose not to. As much as I may lament that my planned encounter didn't happen, I'm also not a train conductor. I prefer not to railroad needlessly. Like I said, it was a side encounter that had the potential to offer the group some cool and interesting benefits down the road. It wasn't the McGuffin scene.

But to each their own...

Well, there is a rule for it - using a Destiny Point.