A couple points for consideration:

• While I understand the gaming concept of "committing to the action," I don't see this concept in the rules here. A player says, "I want to try doing X thing," and the GM says, "Okay, X thing will be this difficulty." There's absolutely nothing wrong with the player backpedaling at that point, or another player jumping in with a slightly different idea.
  • However, if the player has been roleplaying a scene/conversation with an NPC, that requires a bit more finesse in dealing with it. See below for suggestions on player/GM mutual trust, but IMO still the action hasn't been committed to until the dice are in hand . So if the player doesn't want to roll the dice, just roleplay it out!! There's nothing wrong with the GM just narrating a development based on the unfolding conversation. Use a likely course of action, possibly invoking the optional Passive Check rules or some other sensible thing, and do it.
• This game is designed for more collaborative story play. IMO, it's okay for players to converse about what their characters might say or do, which has the potential to make the game experience the best it can be.

What I like about this game is that, once you tell the players the stakes, they have the option of rolling. This should be applied on a situational basis of course, and there are times when I'll ask for a check to be rolled and require my players to go along with it, but this is in the name of making the game fun for everyone.

The trick is to build trust with the players so that when you do make the call, they are able to roll with it. But trust goes both ways, so my advice would be to trust your players with their part of the storytelling. I like to set the ground rules up front, something to this tune:

1. "I'm the GM, and I'm asking you to trust me to make good calls, so when I make a call, please roll with it and I promise I'll try to give you all the best time possible"*
2. "When any of you guys pick up the dice pool to roll, we have both committed to the action, but before that the scene is still open to narrative interpretation, so I welcome any other ideas that could influence the dice pool up until the dice are picked up."

*shamelessly stolen from GM Chris and the Order 66 Podcast, to which I never listen.

awayputyrwpn, I agree.

I don't consider saying "I'd like to charm this guard to let me in" to be 'committing' to a course of action. In my game, picking up the dice and rolling them is committing to the action.

Others may play it differently, but this seems to work for my table.

I don't consider saying "I'd like to charm this guard to let me in" to be 'committing' to a course of action.

Your language is too ambiguous here.

If someone says, "I'd like to charm this guard to let me in," then no, that isn't necessarily a statement of action. It literally just means, "I'm considering the possibility of trying to charm him" - i.e. the speaker is just "thinking out loud".

But if he says, "I try to charm this guard to let me in," then I hope you would take it as a statement of action because, y'know, it is . A statement like that is a clear and unambiguous commitment.

Note, of course, that there need not be a die roll involved - that's a case-by-case call. But if a player says, "I try to charm this guard" then he's now committed to "trying to charm the guard" (however, specifically, you choose to interpret and resolve that action).

Really, I consider picking up the dice and rolling to be the way they 'commit' to the action. I'm just going to handle this distinction personally in my own way as the GM at my table.

If someone says "I try to charm the guard", I might tell them it'll be 2 red and a purple. If they want to pick up the dice and roll it (or roleplay out what they say before they do so), that works.

If they say "oh we should probably just shoot them instead", then they can do that.

If they're dithering about it, I'll say that either somebody must act or I'll have something happen in the environment. The guard notices them and asks what they're doing here, or something else happens.

If someone says "I try to charm the guard", I might tell them it'll be 2 red and a purple. If they want to pick up the dice and roll it (or roleplay out what they say before they do so), that works.

This is what sounds odd to me. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're describing something like the following:

Player: I try to charm the guard.

GM: Alright, that would be a Charm check, with 2 red and 1 purple.

Player: Then I won't charm the guard after all.

GM: But you just said you were going to try.

Player: Yeah; but now that you've told me what the roll would be I've changed my mind.

GM: Okay, no problem. So what are you going to do?

If this is right, then you're far more forgiving than I am.

I won't tell a player what a roll will involve until he has already decided upon the action and it's time to form the dice pool. There is, normally, no opportunity to look at what the dice pool would be and then decide if you want to roll or not. Likewise, a player can't just change his mind about a course of action as if he had never declared it, just because he doesn't like how difficult it's turning out to be.

I don't consider saying "I'd like to charm this guard to let me in" to be 'committing' to a course of action.

Your language is too ambiguous here.

If someone says, "I'd like to charm this guard to let me in," then no, that isn't necessarily a statement of action. It literally just means, "I'm considering the possibility of trying to charm him" - i.e. the speaker is just "thinking out loud".

But if he says, "I try to charm this guard to let me in," then I hope you would take it as a statement of action because, y'know, it is . A statement like that is a clear and unambiguous commitment.

Note, of course, that there need not be a die roll involved - that's a case-by-case call. But if a player says, "I try to charm this guard" then he's now committed to "trying to charm the guard" (however, specifically, you choose to interpret and resolve that action).

Less ambiguity is a good thing, but I think the perception of lack-of-clarity here could be more telling of different gamer types than of actual ambiguity. More telling to me is this overly strict interpretation of "what players say" and "what that means in the game world."

Personally, Matt, I would caution against the approach outlined above, if only because I see it as potentially punishing the players for their choice of words. It can easily devolve into a relationship of mutual distrust, in which the GM assumes he knows what the player's intent was when forming a sentence, and won't allow for the player to clarify his actual intent. "Nope, sorry, you're stuck now; you said you were doing this, now do it." How far would one take this?

Player: "I'm gonna jump that gap between rooftops."

GM: "Okay, the difficulty is Formidable. Roll em."

Player: "Huh? I didn't realize it was so far across. I'll try and find another way around."

GM: "No, you said you were going to jump. You've committed to it, so you have to roll the skill check."

And all this could be seen as immersion-breaking: players realize the difficulty, feel that their characters might have perceived things a bit differently, and feel like they (and their characters) are screwed.

Consider this: the players aren't there in the game world. They are relying entirely on the GM's description of events, location, lighting, facial expressions, body language cues, and other things that we as humans might take for granted. Those difficulty dice being pushed forward help set the social scene for the players , so that they can make their Social checks. They aren't guaranteed success; they don't know the outcome of the dice. Perhaps what looked like an easy mark for a Deception check turned out to be quite vigilant and was able to turn the tables on the PCs once the dice were rolled. But at least they were allowed to participate more, with as much in-character knowledge as was appropriate.

I guess I am more forgiving than you are.

We all seem to have a good time in our games. If I noticed it being a problem I'd do something about it.

When Jay Little describes how he manages it, he describes pushing the purple dice toward the player as the player says what he wants to do. If the player picks up the dice and rolls them, he is committing to the social contract of what those dice mean.

If he doesn't want to commit to it, he doesn't have to pick up the dice.

I'm sure many tables manage this stuff differently.

Players talk to each other about what they're going to do. This can be different than the characters talking to each other.

If the players say "Let's kill this Imperial and take his ID badge", that doesn't NEED to mean they're saying it out loud so the Imperial says "I'm standing right here!" It can just be out-of-character strategizing.

Sometimes players take too long with this phase and I feel the need to say "Okay, somebody must do SOMETHING now."

But I'm pretty flexible about when they 'commit' to an action. It's when they roll the dice.

Personally, Matt, I would caution against the approach outlined above, if only because I see it as potentially punishing the players for their choice of words. It can easily devolve into a relationship of mutual distrust, in which the GM assumes he knows what the player's intent was when forming a sentence, and won't allow for the player to clarify his actual intent. "Nope, sorry, you're stuck now; you said you were doing this, now do it." How far would one take this?

Player: "I'm gonna jump that gap between rooftops."

GM: "Okay, the difficulty is Formidable. Roll em."

Player: "Huh? I didn't realize it was so far across. I'll try and find another way around."

GM: "No, you said you were going to jump. You've committed to it, so you have to roll the skill check."

I agree with the point you're making; but I think you're reading me too strictly.

I'm perfectly happy to let players discuss their options before making any decisions, ask me any questions about the game world that might be relevant, and so forth.

All I'm saying is that once (after deliberation) they finally do declare an action , they can't just back out if they don't like the roll, or pass it off to a different character than the one who declared the action because the second might have a better chance.

As to the roof-jumping example, that's a good illustration of a side-topic that I consider very important: the distinction between difficulty that the PCs can "see" and difficulty that they can't.

In the case you describe, the player is probably within his rights to say, "Wait, just how wide is this gap? I thought it was, like, ten feet?" If I said, "No, it's actually thirty feet," then the player would be within his rights to take the action back. As you point out, in-character he should have had a reasonable idea of how difficult it might be before he tried to jump - he can see the distance. Therefore, he has a right to that information before he makes a decision.

However, there are lots of sources of difficulty in RPGs that will not be apparent to the PCs. In those cases the difficulty will only reveal itself when the character actually takes on the challenge and, therefore, learning of the surprise difficulty should not be an excuse for taking the action back. The player can't expect to be allowed to make decisions on the basis of information his character has no way of knowing.

This, for instance, is often the case with actions such as lying to an NPC. Usually there is no way to know how gullible a given NPC will or will not be until you actually try to deceive him. So you give it a shot and take your chances. If it turns out that this particular guard is actually a lot more perceptive than you expected, well too bad.

"Changing your mind" after learning just how perceptive the guard (secretly) is would be like asking to take back your decision to shoot someone once the GM reveals that he (secretly) had snipers covering him in case you tried that very thing. Your character couldn't have known this beforehand and it couldn't have had any influence on his decision. Ergo, asking (as a player) to change your character's action upon learning (as a player) about this new difficulty is, essentially, cheating.

I can understand that, certainly. There should be some give and take in this issue.

My thoughts on the matter are that the player changing his mind isn't necessarily the same thing as the player character changing his mind. The player character might know full well that this lie he's about to tell has a fat chance in Mustafar of succeeding, while the player is largely oblivious to that fact and thinks it's actually a pretty good lie. The difficulty dice in this instance can help the player understand what his character should already know. (EDIT) This is why I like them so much; they are a really effective tool for narration before and after the roll (if any) is completed.

This hasn't really been a problem for the groups I've GM'd...they take some hard rolls, and pass on some others. If it turns to dithering, it's a problem, but one that can easily be sorted out by some real-time consequences.

Knowing when and how to separate player knowledge from character knowledge is a key to good gaming, and I'm sure that most GMs on here are more than capable of doing that. I'm certain also that this is a very situational issue, and when presented with a given occurrence, the gaming group in question will know what to do.

But I'm pretty flexible about when they 'commit' to an action. It's when they roll the dice.

I don't force players to act after telling them the difficulty, however once I do tell them the scene does change a bit. In the case of a conversation it may play out as a pause or hand off to another PC that a NPC may notice, or a hesitation and look over the edge of the cavern while being chased and realizing its farther than they thought. It may, if there are no NPCs present or some other special circumstance, have no affect at all.

The point isn't to punish Players but to encourage immersion and creativity, and building well rounded PCs. Adventure is about overcoming adversity by rising to the occasion and getting better, it's not always about handing it off to the best.

For most actions, the commitment to the action is when the dice are rolled.

Example:

Mechanic: I'm going to fix the hull trauma before we leave.

Me: Okay, here's the difficulty, and the time it will take. You'll need to be on the ground for hull repairs, and there are still Imperial scout ships out there...

This would invite the rest of the players to add their input. The Pilot argues that if scouts show up, he'd rather be in the air, or gone altogether. The Merc gunner insists that as long as the dorsal turret is working, he can keep the scouts off them long enough for an escape, etc. So they can take back that decision. The longer they take, the less Threat required for a Scout ship to happen by during the repairs.

When they decide, they can assemble the dice pool, take their opportunity to modify it with talents to remove threats, or flip a Destiny, or whatever. This would be their last chance to back out. This would be reflected narratively in the mechanic getting a look at the damage, and perhaps realizing it's a bigger repair than he thought. But once the dice are rolled, the results will determine what happens.

Social skills have a slightly earlier commitment, because I'm one of those annoying GMs who makes players role play.

Fringer: I charm the guards to let me through.

Me: Okay, what do you say?

Once their character has spoken, the NPC begins making decisions. In this case, any PCs present can join in the conversation, and it can go any direction, or multiple directions. There could even be multiple interactions, with 2 PCs playing Good Cop (Charm/Deception) Bad Cop (Coerce). But the final roll will come down to one of the involved players making a skill check of the appropriate type, receiving boost and/or setback based on the interaction. In the Good Cop/Bad Cop case, it's usually the Charm that is the final roll, but I would let the Coerce player make a separate check to weaken the opponent's resolve, and generate boost for the Charm roll.

Of course, even a single character may have a roll that is combined Coercion and Deception.

Edit: and quickly becomes Negotiation.

Bothan Spy: Give up right now, there's a Mon Calamari Cruiser in position just overhead ready to take out your whole army. Would you believe it? A Mon Cal cruiser.

Imperial SmartGuy: No, Bothan, I don't believe it.
Bothan: Would you believe a Corellian Corvette, then?

Imperial: No, not really.

Bothan: Would you believe a moisture farmer in an X-Wing??

The social hand-off happens enough in real ife too. Perhaps the boss begins and gets a drink off the tray and starts chatting. Then calls over the sales man to continue the sales. Would it be too outragious to then find the sales man feels a different approach will work and he then changes the direction of his pitch.

If you are too hard assed on your players you risk putting them into a "describe it to me" lock, rather than playing the game and having fun the players are continually asking for clarrification to the situation. The problem will be worse during a social encounter as the player is trying to guage what skill levels the NPC has because it will not be apparent until the dice are committed. "You have to provide hints, he seems charming but not too bright." This takes the players away from the grand space opera and makes the encounters somewhat mundain.

I would rather avoid that and just play on, and where the players back track just let them. My goal is to ensure the players had fun and that I had fun too.

Star Wars (FFG Style) rewards failure, once the players learn that failure is just as much fun as success they will develop some trust in what the GM is doing and care far less about failure.

GM: Well the Guard noticed PC1 was a little uncomfortable telling him what you guys were doing here before he waved you over so I'm going to add a Setback die because it made him a little suspicious...

Of course any Politico worth his weight will have the "Make Black Die Go Away" talents all lined up. . . ..

Actually, I've never had an issue with players backpedaling on me. If they need to perform a social skill, for instance, the Politico generally just steps up and does it, so there's no problem. Same with most skills. The players know each others strengths and weaknesses and will generally just send in the one with the appropriate skill set. In fact, they usually jump at the chance to make a skill check. Nary a droid walks by without the Outlaw Tech wanting to cannibalize it for parts with a Mechanics check

If you're having this problem, however, I just wouldn't allow them to back out of an action once they've declared it. If someone specifically says "I'm going to sneak up and see if I can hear what they're saying", then I say "OK, make an opposed Stealth roll with one challenge and two difficulty". I don't give them a choice, I just ask them to make the roll. At that point, I wouldn't allow anyone to say "Oh, well, in that case, we'll have X do it because he has good stealth." They declared the action, so they do it.

I also wouldn't take the bait if someone started fishing for task difficulty. If someone asks "Can I make a Charm check to [do whatever]?" I'd say either yes or no. If they asked "What would the difficulty be?" or "Would it be more difficult to use Charm instead of Coercion?" I'd say "There's one way to find out, isn't there?"

I was thinking about this and went to describe a chase where the NPC jumps a void. If the GM hands the player the same negative dice that the NPC rolled all is good. The player just picks up his Athletics pool and rolls. If the GM hand waves the NPC then he should hand wave the PC.