During the last session I played in, I was making skill rolls for my charatcer using skills he had no ranks in, and a base characteristic of 2. An average difficulty skill roll with a base stat of 2 is 2 green dice and 2 purple dice, assuming no modifiers, and that works out to be about a 50/50 chance for success, I think. I realized that it also meant there was a good chance I'd generate threat as well. Given the choice between rolling the dice and not rolling them, I decided it would be in my (and the party's) best interests not to roll the dice if that was an option.

That led to the inevitable question: when should it be an option to NOT roll a skill check? When can the GM say something like "Everyone make a Perception check," and a player can respond with "No thanks, I'll just voluntarily fail it."

In most other RPGs, it's no big deal if you fail a Perception check, since the result is a binary pass/fail and the worst consequence of failing is that you don't notice something. In EotE, however, generating Threat can mean that Bad Things Happen. In short, it's always potentially dangerous to roll the dice in this game.

I think in some cases, perhaps when there is risk involved, or the when the character in question cannot reasonably avoid the skill check, then the roll must be made, for better or worse. At other times, however, maybe it's okay to make a skill roll optional, or to just agree up front that some skill rolls (like Perception skill checks) do not carry an inherent risk, so any threat or advantage they generate will be ignored and only the success or failure of the roll will count.

Any thoughts or opinion? Have you guys ever run into situations where it was better to just opt out of a skill check and fail it without rolling?

As a GM, I'd rule it based on the skill check.

For example, I usually consider Perception to be an active check, where the characters are looking for something specific. I probably wouldn't ask everyone to make a Perception check, unless the entire party was actively searching.

However a Vigilance check, I might ask the whole party to each make Vigilance checks, and I might have uses for Threats generated from such a check. Maybe they're in a bad part of town, making Vigilance checks to determine whether they spot the gangers creeping up on them from an alley. Threats might affect that--more threats might mean more gangers.

In such a case I'd say I wouldn't consider the check optional. It's not your character choosing to take an action, it is just a check to see how the character reacts to something which is happening anyway.

I haven't had the situation yet but I can tell you, check the dice faces on page 12.... 2G vs 2P is not a 50:50 chance of success...

As for choosing to not roll, in some cases sure. There's been plenty of times when I was about to do something and then decided it'd be better not to. So if a player thinks he wants to con a Hutt crimeboss and then decides not to when he finds out the difficulty... no problem. "Hey Jabba I was just thinking......... you know what, nevermind, we're good here."

On the other hand there are certainly some checks that need to be rolled, like it or not. A Fear check when Darth Vader walks into the dining hall... yeah, that's just gonna have to be rolled.

Back to the dice, the mechanics are really really nifty when you look at the exploded chart. I remember back in beta someone crunched the numbers and found: 1g<1y<2g. So a person with ability and no skill is more likely to succeed then a skilled person with less ability... but only the skilled one can triumph...

The force dice are my fave though. the darkside is more likely to come up, but the light side is more likely to generate doubles... just like the Yoda says, the darkside is faster, easier and more seductive, but the light side is ultimately stronger.

One of our players regularly declines to roll. (We seem to generate more Advantages and Threat than Successes and Failures, which has caused more than a little frustration.)

Unless the degree to which you pass or fail really matters, or unless he has something in mind for what to do with Threat, our GM lets it slide.

The force dice are my fave though. the darkside is more likely to come up, but the light side is more likely to generate doubles... just like the Yoda says, the darkside is faster, easier and more seductive, but the light side is ultimately stronger.

Well, just as strong.

(Same total number of dots.)

Someone put up a link to the actual odds but I believe their closer to 55/45 in your favour, in any case I see what you are getting at. If the GM asks for a roll you should make it with the understanding that any negative effects of Threats should be relative to the weight of the test. To not do so is Metagaming. However, if you're finding that your GM is having the speeder next you blow up in your face because you got a couple of threats on a Perception throw you have other problems with your game...

Any thoughts or opinion? Have you guys ever run into situations where it was better to just opt out of a skill check and fail it without rolling?

I don't think I'd allow that as a GM. The point of the roll is to see the PC's reaction, and failure/threat contributes as much to the story as success/advantage. Just MHO, but if the players are leery of rolling, perhaps the GM is being too severe with failure consequences. I find the Strain mechanic to be very helpful as a default because it's simple to narrate, and the player has plenty of opportunities to recover.

I suppose if a player insisted on not rolling, rather than starting an argument in the game I'd just make sure they were assigned last to whatever action sequence was possible.

Unless there is the possibility of a Despair I would suggest players put their big trooper pants on and roll some dice.

For non-combat checks, if the PC wants to simply accept failure at a skill check, I'd let them. There's always been a precedent for "PC can choose to fail a check" since the earliest days of D&D. Granted, most systems will suggest you at least make the roll as one never knows when the player will buck the odds and succeed in spite of their low chance of success.

Given this system's approach to dice resolution, it might be more beneficial to a PC to not roll, and thus not have to worry about generating Threat that could be used against them later on, particularly if they see that the difficulty is going to be really high and that they're only rolling a couple of ability dice.

Combat checks gets a bit trickier, but I'd leave it in the player's hands if they want to opt out of making an attack roll; if they really don't want to take the shot, don't force them into doing so, and perhaps instead suggest that they use their action to instead provide aid to an ally with the narrative description being that their shot, while missing, distracted the target enough to give the ally a broader opening for their shot.

After all, how many times as each of us encountered a problem or difficult situation, thought about trying to resolve it, and then decided "maybe I'd better stand back and let some more qualified handle this?" I don't see why that same sort of thing couldn't happen in the game. Just because the consequences for failure don't have a long-standing impact in the lives of those playing the game doesn't mean the characters would feel the same way.

It could be as simple as changing how the GM calls out for the skill checks. Instead of saying, "everyone roll a perception," perhaps the GM should say, "anyone looking should roll a perception." That way it gives an out if it's a skill check that you can decline to take. Now, if it's something everyone must do, such as vigilance on an ambush, then the GM should say "everyone roll."

I'd be tempted to say that opting out of something like that means failure with one or two Threat. If you really want to close yourself off like that, then accept the bad position you put yourself in.

I think part of the problem is that people are considering the "roll" as just what the PC is doing and their success or failure in that action rather than whats happening in the scene during that action. EotE is a cinematic story telling game in a way D&D and others aren't. Rolls give you information about events and consequences that affect the PC as well as what affect the PC has in the scene. You can see this by how you can use Advantages, Threats etc. to affect characters and events other than the PC making the roll such as Advantages causing an Opponent to stumble (giving them a Setback die) rather than giving the PC a Boost die. Threats in combat usually affect the PC rolling them but they don't have to (see the options on Pg 207) and neither should they outside of combat.

A Perception check that has Threats, regardless of success, can mean a variety of things all of them potentially story changing. You don't make rolls in EotE just to find out how well or how badly your actions succeed or fail, you roll to create events within the story around your actions.

I'd never insist Butter Fingers Bob be the one to defuse the bomb, but in regards to things like Vigilance it's non negotiable. In other cases if a player showed a pattern of just trying to avoid bad rolls I might not let them have any input on decisions the group makes, it really just depends. I know one thing, if someone says they intentionally aren't making a Perception check and someone else rolls some bad dice anyway, I know who is falling through the trapdoor into the Rancor pit.....

I know one thing, if someone says they intentionally aren't making a Perception check ...

Then they should make a Vigilance check. You can't decide to not going to notice something. Well you can, but then you are actively plugging your ears and closing your eyes and that could instigate other rolls.

As with so many things in this game, it really varies from situation to situation, and all depends on the fiction you're building. Sure you can opt not to roll the dice, but then you don't get your input on what happens. The obvious exception to this is RPing with an NPC. I don't mind skipping dice there as long as they have an active role in the conversation and it can be settled without rolls.

I'd say that if there is a good in character reason for their not making the roll I would allow that if I were GMing, otherwise, those dice are hitting the table.

Had this come up in a game recently where my character was trying to use Charm to defuse a situation peacefully. I was rolling 1G 1Y, and when we saw the difficulty pool of 4R 1P, another player blurted out that I shouldn't attempt this, and I told him to stop with the metagaming cheese. My character is a Caamasi Jedi...I'm going to try and resolve conflicts without violence if I can. Shockingly, I succeeded (!!!), with 3 or 4 threat. As far as I was concerned, that was absolutely fine.

My point is, a player shouldn't be deciding whether or not to roll a skill check based on the risk of generating threat or despair unless there's a significant reason for them to be reluctant about doing so. If they are unskilled, and the task seems dangerous or prone to causing some trouble, sure. If they know someone else more skilled is able to perform the check, sure.

For something like Perception? If they can provide a reason for why they aren't actively looking around, have them roll Vigilance. Otherwise, no.

I'd say that if there is a good in character reason for their not making the roll I would allow that if I were GMing, otherwise, those dice are hitting the table.

Had this come up in a game recently where my character was trying to use Charm to defuse a situation peacefully. I was rolling 1G 1Y, and when we saw the difficulty pool of 4R 1P, another player blurted out that I shouldn't attempt this, and I told him to stop with the metagaming cheese. My character is a Caamasi Jedi...I'm going to try and resolve conflicts without violence if I can. Shockingly, I succeeded (!!!), with 3 or 4 threat. As far as I was concerned, that was absolutely fine.

My point is, a player shouldn't be deciding whether or not to roll a skill check based on the risk of generating threat or despair unless there's a significant reason for them to be reluctant about doing so. If they are unskilled, and the task seems dangerous or prone to causing some trouble, sure. If they know someone else more skilled is able to perform the check, sure.

For something like Perception? If they can provide a reason for why they aren't actively looking around, have them roll Vigilance. Otherwise, no.

Here, here! Are we galactic adventurers and free wheeling scoundrels or insurance agency risk adjusters?!?

I can't wait for the new Comptroller specialization in the Accountant Career book!

I do think the "Balance the Books" talent is way overpowered though. Still, the new holo-slide-rule gear will be awesome.

"Balance the Books" only looks OP. The plasma ledger on pg. 88 is what you're expected to provide NPCs to help balance it.

Oddly though I did have a campaign that ended up crashing and burning where the players were Insurance investigators...

I don't think I'd make it an option. Not to sound to dictatorial, but if I say it's time to roll perception as a GM, that doesn't mean roll it if you feel like it. It would never happen in my group, but if for some reason somebody refused to roll, I'd give them failure with a threat automatically.

"Balance the Books" only looks OP. The plasma ledger on pg. 88 is what you're expected to provide NPCs to help balance it.

Oddly though I did have a campaign that ended up crashing and burning where the players were Insurance investigators...

Fans of old-time radio may be familiar with "Yours Truly, Johnny Dollar", about an insurance investigator. "The man with the action-packed expense account"!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yours_Truly,_Johnny_Dollar

There are times when I do not adjudicate threat or advantage. It's not often, but it happens. Usually when I am trying to move the scene along and I don't want to fall back on strain.

There are several references in the CRB text that indicate rolling dice is something to be done when it has been determined an action (or inaction) could and should result in...something...for good or for ill. So it stands to reason that rolling dice is meant to add to the narrative. If I called for a player to assemble a dice pool and roll, for anything, and was rebutted with "I voluntarily fail" or similar because the player doesn't want to risk Threat/Despair results, I'd give the player the choice of making the roll or allowing me to make the roll, and I would explain that should I make the roll I'd be throwing a DS Destiny point at it.

Not to be adversarial, but the GM calls for a dice pool roll for a reason, and not just because the GM is acting like a twit.

Twit works as well BTW...

B.O. is right though in that unless your GM is overly harsh with negative results, rolls are to give information to build the scene with, and not just by the GM. See it's actually also the Player's responsibility to offer up suggestions for both positive and negative results and build the story together, even and most especially the small stuff. The GM provides the box and the sand but everyone in the group makes the castle. The dice (and the RAW) provide the water that holds it all together, they are the equalizers that keep things fair because the RAW applies to everyone and dice favour no one (well actually they slightly favour the positive all things being equal). So any time the outcome of a roll can change the outcome of a scene or action you should roll, not to "Roll-Play" but to create possibilities that you may not have thought of.

RPGs aren't meant to be played like a zero sum game. Walking out the door to take on the Galactic Empire is not a real bright thing to do. Nor is ripping off the Hutts. Nor is idly dabbling in the Force. Adventure equals risk which equals excitement which should be viewed as reward in and of itself.