I tend to use Perception as the act of Investigation, as Aservan mentions above.

Yes, it is the act of 'seeing' something, but its more the act of picking out that core detail.

A vigilant individual can see a dude looking sketchy in a crowd, and prepare for it. A perceptive individual realises the guy wasn't eyeballing the party, but the rich looking nobleman walking past them.

The difference between seeing action, and seeing detail.

Except how you describe the skills and the CRB does are completely different. Read Perception and Vigilance. The difference between the two in the first couple paragraphs is word choice and that's about it. They're both describing the exact same thing, ongoing passive awareness of one's surroundings.

Perception is more of your passive awareness. A lot of the "vigilance" checks people were talking about are supposed to be perception. Perception is both passive and can be active, just walking by and noticing something is not being vigilant. The person that is walking along, paying attention to his enviroment for options if something happens and possible threats, he is being vigilant. Vigilance is how well are you prepared for danger, gotta be ready with that split second reaction.

Perception is more of your passive awareness. A lot of the "vigilance" checks people were talking about are supposed to be perception. Perception is both passive and can be active, just walking by and noticing something is not being vigilant. The person that is walking along, paying attention to his enviroment for options if something happens and possible threats, he is being vigilant. Vigilance is how well are you prepared for danger, gotta be ready with that split second reaction.

Is this not getting into Player vs. Character territory?

e.g. If a player is vigilant, they may have declared their character is checking under the bed for pressure-triggered bombs. If a character is vigilant the GM may ask for a passive roll to find the same (until the roll is made the naration is just them walking into the room).

I've seen GMs allow a player to use their better of Vig or Cool for initiative. Really think drawing a distinction between Vig/Cool as initiative stats was unnecessary.

RAW specifically allows for players to roll either. I believe it states something along the lines of Vigilance being the default check for Initiative; only using Cool when the circumstances dictated it was appropriate.

Perception is more of your passive awareness. A lot of the "vigilance" checks people were talking about are supposed to be perception. Perception is both passive and can be active, just walking by and noticing something is not being vigilant. The person that is walking along, paying attention to his enviroment for options if something happens and possible threats, he is being vigilant. Vigilance is how well are you prepared for danger, gotta be ready with that split second reaction.

Is this not getting into Player vs. Character territory?

e.g. If a player is vigilant, they may have declared their character is checking under the bed for pressure-triggered bombs. If a character is vigilant the GM may ask for a passive roll to find the same (until the roll is made the naration is just them walking into the room).

If your character notices something is a perception check they make that pretty obvious under the skill description.

Vigilance isn't going to be used much outside of initiative, but it bests represents what it is that way. Your ability to be prepared and react to dangerous situations.

It's easy to me to differentiate Vigilance vs Perception, but my players still argue with me on Cool vs Discipline.

It's easy to me to differentiate Vigilance vs Perception, but my players still argue with me on Cool vs Discipline.

Well, Cool is not being fazed by dangerous stuff.

Discipline is holding your ground when you realise it's going to kill you.

I've seen GMs allow a player to use their better of Vig or Cool for initiative. Really think drawing a distinction between Vig/Cool as initiative stats was unnecessary.

RAW specifically allows for players to roll either. I believe it states something along the lines of Vigilance being the default check for Initiative; only using Cool when the circumstances dictated it was appropriate.

It seems to me that the choice of what to roll for initiative is on the GM, not the player. So Cool COULD be useful for initiative, but is not likely to be AS useful for initiative than Vigilance. Cool is also useful for regaining Strain, I just think Discipline covers more because it's also part of resisting social influence or torture. I continue to think Cool lacks a real niche and was just a way to justify Han's behavior during dangerous situations in game mechanics differentiating from, say, Obi-Wan's trained Jedi discipline.

It's easy to me to differentiate Vigilance vs Perception, but my players still argue with me on Cool vs Discipline.

Well, Cool is not being fazed by dangerous stuff.

Discipline is holding your ground when you realise it's going to kill you.

Not a good enough distinction to be 2 different skills, imo.

Aso to Perception vs Vig - Perception is actively looking for the trap, seeing it, and bypassing it. Vigilance is stepping on the pressure sensor, feeling the ground give way and instinctively jerking your foot back before the floor collapses under it.

It's easy to me to differentiate Vigilance vs Perception, but my players still argue with me on Cool vs Discipline.

Well, Cool is not being fazed by dangerous stuff.

Discipline is holding your ground when you realise it's going to kill you.

Not a good enough distinction to be 2 different skills, imo.

I agree.

Of course I'd be happy condensing Perception and Vigilance. Computers and Astrogation too, probably.

The distinction made on an Order 66 episode, with which Sam Stewart agreed, was that Cool is external and Discipline is internal. Cool is keeping the cool of your appearance, while Discipline is how you react internally.

Also, one of my favorite examples of Cool is in the Beginner Box adventure. When the Gammorreans are looking for you, if you sit down and act like you belong there, you can make a Cool check to hide from them.

The distinction made on an Order 66 episode, with which Sam Stewart agreed, was that Cool is external and Discipline is internal. Cool is keeping the cool of your appearance, while Discipline is how you react internally.

OK. I don't consider that a good enough justification for having 2 separate skills.

The distinction made on an Order 66 episode, with which Sam Stewart agreed, was that Cool is external and Discipline is internal. Cool is keeping the cool of your appearance, while Discipline is how you react internally.

OK. I don't consider that a good enough justification for having 2 separate skills.

You're certainly welcome to run your game however you like. It works for me the way they designed it. Hopefully they'll ask you next time before they make a decision.

When asked about Cool and Discipline, Stewart also made it clear that there are factors involving all three game lines being designed at the same time. It's clear Discipline is going to have a lot to do with Jedi, but there are probably aspects of that we don't know yet.

I'm not changing the mechanics for my game, mainly because I don't care to do a lot of the necessary re-balancing that would come with removing a skill. However I have no problem criticizing the underlying design intent for those two separate mechanics because I don't see the official differentiation between Cool and Discipline as particularly satisfying.

I do understand that Discipline plays a role in some existing Force powers and probably will continue to do so going forward, but I think it's also clear that they didn't want to make a "Use the Force" type skill since that was so easily broken in other Star Wars game lines (and also hyper focused more than the non-combat skills in this game are intended to be). Yes, probably making Discipline JUST Force-use would be too focused and Force-use plus social resistance might be too much. The problem that I see is that Cool is an ill-defined grab-bag skill that requires more interpretation than it should, or than is readily feasible while actually playing.

Further, the book should make this stuff clear, I shouldn't need to go to a separate online-only source to be able to properly interpret the mechanics as-written.

Hopefully they'll ask you next time before they make a decision.

This is an unnecessarily snotty comment. The devs aren't some higher-level beings who deserve ultimate worship because they speak Pure Truth. If you're saying we mere plebs who pay for books shouldn't question design decisions or don't have a right to, well, I couldn't disagree with that notion more.

?

Lon g day.

Cool I see as your ability to uphold a "front" in stressful situations. With Discipline you may shrug off fear and other psychological effects, with Cool you only look like you do. That philosophy gets a bit sticky when you use it for combat initiative.

Perhaps it's more "too busy to deal with that right now". Of course that doesn't explain why a player can't choose whether to roll Cool or Discipline every single time a roll for either is called for. [shrugs]

How would you guys handle this in terms of choosing the skills:

The PCs have snuck onto an enemy ship. They seal themselves up in a cabin in order to slice into the ship's computer system unseen. One guy stands with his ear to the door, listening for the sound of approaching enemies.

Would the character on guard at the door make a Perception check to hear someone coming down the hall? Or would you say Vigilance is more applicable in that situation?

I think the designers messed up, but not in the way some are suggesting.

They messed up when they named the skill perception. Perception is such a broad range of abilities as to be almost a useless term in gaming. In systems where perception is really perception it's almost invariably the best skill there is.

They should have named it investigation and we wouldn't need to have these silly arguments. Most people know investigation is an active task that is undertaken with conscious regard.

Vigilance is the ability to whip out your lightsaber and parry blaster bolts. Perception is your ability to stare at a man and determine from his body language if he's lying.

Lots of observant people don't react well to surprise. Anyone can be surprised. When was the last time you went into the bathroom expecting a woman to shoot you while you used the urinal? You've gathered all the data: woman, gun, bathroom. Do you react quickly or do you stand an gape like a fish? Vigilant people do.

In the 40K RPG there's is a skill called Scrutiny, which I think is a better name for this game's Perception. It implies the active study of a thing.

In the 40K RPG there's is a skill called Scrutiny, which I think is a better name for this game's Perception. It implies the active study of a thing.

Good for spotting lies and working scanners. A strange combination but there you go.

How would you guys handle this in terms of choosing the skills:

The PCs have snuck onto an enemy ship. They seal themselves up in a cabin in order to slice into the ship's computer system unseen. One guy stands with his ear to the door, listening for the sound of approaching enemies.

Would the character on guard at the door make a Perception check to hear someone coming down the hall? Or would you say Vigilance is more applicable in that situation?

If we're splitting them by Active vs. Passive, Perception.

If there were some of those poisonous centipede things from Ep2 already hiding in the room (thus unexpected), Vigilance.

How would you guys handle this in terms of choosing the skills:

The PCs have snuck onto an enemy ship. They seal themselves up in a cabin in order to slice into the ship's computer system unseen. One guy stands with his ear to the door, listening for the sound of approaching enemies.

Would the character on guard at the door make a Perception check to hear someone coming down the hall? Or would you say Vigilance is more applicable in that situation?

Perception. He is making an active search for something [noise].

I am a bit confused as to this thread.

In the book it clearly states, that "The Perception skill represents the character's constant, passive state of awareness."

I take this to mean, that, yes, players will be rolling perception checks a lot. But it is not an active skill

I am a bit confused as to this thread.

In the book it clearly states, that "The Perception skill represents the character's constant, passive state of awareness."

I take this to mean, that, yes, players will be rolling perception checks a lot. But it is not an active skill

Yeah that's a problem because Perception is also the active "observe in detail" skill associated with everything from searching a room for clues to patting down someone for hidden weapons.

I am a bit confused as to this thread.

In the book it clearly states, that "The Perception skill represents the character's constant, passive state of awareness."

I take this to mean, that, yes, players will be rolling perception checks a lot. But it is not an active skill

Yeah that's a problem because Perception is also the active "observe in detail" skill associated with everything from searching a room for clues to patting down someone for hidden weapons.

How's this a problem? You just walking down the road and notice a $5 bill, you passively perceived that $5 was there. I can still actively decide to look around see if there's more. Both uses of perception.

How would you guys handle this in terms of choosing the skills:

The PCs have snuck onto an enemy ship. They seal themselves up in a cabin in order to slice into the ship's computer system unseen. One guy stands with his ear to the door, listening for the sound of approaching enemies.

Would the character on guard at the door make a Perception check to hear someone coming down the hall? Or would you say Vigilance is more applicable in that situation?

Personally, I would have him roll perception. If he chose not to listen at the door and just mill about, I would have him roll vigilance.

While I love appreciate the distinction between the two skills, I can certainly see why people don't like the split.

I'm just saying it makes sense to me, and that you should play it however you think makes sense.

I'm at Gamernation Con and we were playing a game and GM Chris (as the GM for the game I'm playing in) asked Jay Little a rules question. Jay just says "I don't know, what makes sense in the moment in your game?"

He's not anal retentive about getting the exact rules right, it's a loosely-structured system designed to cover a lot of ground with a lot of interpretation by the GM.

I respect that a lot. They've discussed the process of whittling down skills, how at one point they had 10 or 15 more skills than there are now, but they narrowed them down and broadened the effects of some and made them more inclusive to make the game simpler.

Just do whatever you want for your game.