This is how I've been running it in my game. Maybe it's the correct way. But maybe it's not, and I would like some insight into that.

Ideally, I want the players rolling the dice for anything involving their characters.

As an example, let's take Stealth vs. Perception.

If the PC is actively searching for the ninjas, they make a Perception check with the difficulty based on the ninja's Stealth. If the PC is trying to be the ninja, the player makes a Stealth check with the difficulty based on the guard's Perception. In both cases, it's the player making the die roll.

(Now, in a case where I don't want to reveal what's going on to the players, I will make a roll on the NPC's behalf using the PC's numbers as the difficulty. Say, if the PC is "on watch" and not expecting trouble and therefore only passively Perceiving for ninjas. Then I'll roll the ninja's Stealth using the PC's Perception as the difficulty. It'll be behind my screen, and the PCs won't know what I'm rolling.)

Same holds for Deception vs. Discipline, or any other opposed check.

Am I doing it the best way? How do you do it?

I would say you have the right of it.

But as a GM if a PC is not actively doing the action then you could just call the NPC's action successful without rolling. In the case that you used above, A ninja is highly trained in what they are doing, now ninja attempts assasination and uses a blow gun, that's where the roll comes from. Does the ninja want to stay hidden? Add difficulty/setback/challenge Die (with in reason). Does the ninja miss? If yes then was there threat or despair? If yes then give the PC an opportunity to "hear" the dart hit something else and tell them that something just happened to set them on edge and give them opportunity to figure out if and what they want to do and they roll. All this would be what you stated above.

Now with a inexperienced street urchin (talking about how you said it above not my scenario), I think you hit the nail on the head.

In both scenarios, If the PCs are being followed I would say that you have the basis for that above. When the NPC goes to follow do they bump something? Well its the NPC's movement so it would be the NPC rolling just add a the dice you feel is appropriate.

I feel that the way that FFG set the narrative dice up is for this reason. Someone may be able to come up with a better suggestion creatively but I feel you are following the idea the Devs came up with to a "T". Its all about the story to a point that the roll created, but rolling to much can slow it down and become a grind. all that comes with experience that you gain as a GM. When I was a DM a long time ago, I would secretly roll sometimes and sometimes I would hand wave just like above. How integral to the story is it that the ninja stays hidden for as long as possible? What the PCs don't know won't hurt them, you just don't want to wipe the out and end the game so be careful.

I'm a brand new player and have only had two sessions (first pen and paper RPG experience ever), but that appears to be the way my GM does it. I feel like that would make it a better experience overall for the player.

Adding to what I said, you need to ensure that you don't end a PC's session or the whole parties so please do be careful and imaginative.

The way I run it in my games is that the active or initiating character is the one making the check. It's important to remember that the dice are slightly weighted to the advantage of whomever is forming the dice pool.

I just have the players roll. It helps keep them more 'actively involved', even when they're the ones on the receiving end of things.

I have the players roll whenever possible. In fact, except for combat, I can't think of a time the NPCs have rolled anything in my games. One thing to keep in mind is that the positive dice are slightly better than the negative dice, so if the NPCs are rolling they're getting a slight leg up. I think normal difficulties are geared towards the players so that might require a bit of adjustment.

The way I run it in my games is that the active or initiating character is the one making the check. It's important to remember that the dice are slightly weighted to the advantage of whomever is forming the dice pool.

The example was a ninja NPC basically stalking the PCs and the PCs not actively trying to find the ninja. Why would the PCs roll, you give them a clue that they need to be rolling and the GM gave away the story line whether or not the PCs fail. I agree that the PCs need to roll as much as possible as they are the ones that are playing the GM is guiding the game.

So PCs not actively looking the NPC needs to make a success/mistake. The GM could also make the call that when the time is right something cues the PCs to actively look, but until that time the NPC should be rolling. It doesn't mean that the NPC is now a primary player it just helps the GM with the plot.

Example 1: GM states: PC [Name] roll for perception with average difficulty and 1 setback, PC roll fails. The GM just "forced the PC to roll for something that the PC could not have known to roll.

Example 2: GM rolls stealth with applicable difficulty and isn't successful then GM states to the PC "you notice something isn't right" or "you hear hear a piece of metal fall" this makes the PC think about what they are going to do and roll for more narrative.

It's all about what the GM is doing about the plot ultimately, but allows the GM to play the NPC like a character with more depth thickening the plot.

The way I run it in my games is that the active or initiating character is the one making the check. It's important to remember that the dice are slightly weighted to the advantage of whomever is forming the dice pool.

This is the way I do it and I feel there is something needed to be said. If you run it the way you do, and most are suggesting the you run into a problem: If a player has an ability that's upgrades the difficulty of a foes check, increases the difficulty of that check, or adds threat dice to that check or flip sided of an npc gets boost dice, lowers difficulty or decrease difficulty for their own check then all of these modifiers suddenly become useless if the dice are always being rolled by the player because they only get applied when the player is not rolling.

Exactly. I agree with this (if I am not reading this right I am sorry). If you always have the PC roll you make it to where the NPCs are never successful both by roll and narrative because you have given the plot away. Some PCs can handle knowing the plot and some will take advantage of that knowledge. 1 out of 4 players will take advantage. The GM rolling in private will give them the idea that something isn't right in Denmark and the players become suspicious that way also. But ultimately the one that needs to roll is the NPC/PC initiating the the action.

The way I run it in my games is that the active or initiating character is the one making the check. It's important to remember that the dice are slightly weighted to the advantage of whomever is forming the dice pool.

This is the way I do it and I feel there is something needed to be said. If you run it the way you do, and most are suggesting the you run into a problem: If a player has an ability that's upgrades the difficulty of a foes check, increases the difficulty of that check, or adds threat dice to that check or flip sided of an npc gets boost dice, lowers difficulty or decrease difficulty for their own check then all of these modifiers suddenly become useless if the dice are always being rolled by the player because they only get applied when the player is not rolling.

Exactly. I agree with this (if I am not reading this right I am sorry). If you always have the PC roll you make it to where the NPCs are never successful both by roll and narrative because you have given the plot away. Some PCs can handle knowing the plot and some will take advantage of that knowledge. 1 out of 4 players will take advantage. The GM rolling in private will give them the idea that something isn't right in Denmark and the players become suspicious that way also. But ultimately the one that needs to roll is the NPC/PC initiating the the action.

In other words your making a large chunk of the mechanics useless if you always have the players roll.

This is why I run it the same way as the player I quoted, in that whomever initiates the check rolls it. Ie if guards search for players the GM rolls for the NPC's but if the players are sneaking by guards then the PC's roll.

The example was a ninja NPC basically stalking the PCs and the PCs not actively trying to find the ninja. Why would the PCs roll, you give them a clue that they need to be rolling and the GM gave away the story line whether or not the PCs fail. I agree that the PCs need to roll as much as possible as they are the ones that are playing the GM is guiding the game.

If the PCs aren't "actively searching" it's a Vigilance check.

You just don'y let them know what for unless they succeed. If they fail they can sweat it, as long as it's the Players getting paranoid and not he characters suddenly starting to go the extra mile to " find whatever they just missed ".

The players should roll the dice.

The way I run it in my games is that the active or initiating character is the one making the check. It's important to remember that the dice are slightly weighted to the advantage of whomever is forming the dice pool.

This is the way I do it and I feel there is something needed to be said. If you run it the way you do, and most are suggesting the you run into a problem: If a player has an ability that's upgrades the difficulty of a foes check, increases the difficulty of that check, or adds threat dice to that check or flip sided of an npc gets boost dice, lowers difficulty or decrease difficulty for their own check then all of these modifiers suddenly become useless if the dice are always being rolled by the player because they only get applied when the player is not rolling.

Exactly. I agree with this (if I am not reading this right I am sorry). If you always have the PC roll you make it to where the NPCs are never successful both by roll and narrative because you have given the plot away. Some PCs can handle knowing the plot and some will take advantage of that knowledge. 1 out of 4 players will take advantage. The GM rolling in private will give them the idea that something isn't right in Denmark and the players become suspicious that way also. But ultimately the one that needs to roll is the NPC/PC initiating the the action.

kind of, while I agree it provides knowledge the players may not have I was more pointing out you make certain talents and buffs from things that would never apply. Ie if an npc gets a boost die to perception checks but they never make those checks because the player just makes stealth checks then that boost die never does anything, similarly if the enemy downgrades the difficulty for perception checks then they never get that because they're not rolling, etc

In other words your making a large chunk of the mechanics useless if you always have the players roll.

This is why I run it the same way as the player I quoted, in that whomever initiates the check rolls it. Ie if guards search for players the GM rolls for the NPC's but if the players are sneaking by guards then the PC's roll.

I think that is a very good explanation of the who, what where and why, and I agree, just the initiator should roll, but I feel that depending on that roll depends on possibly a reaction roll as I stated above. The dice can roll out to a degree of success but with a threat it could cause a slight problem like a noise causing the players to take notice and roll, or a failure which would cause the players not to have to roll. A success with a despair could be the players don't notice but the NPC slips off the ledge and catches him self with his hands losing the players. The dice in this system really allows for a lot of scenarios.

The way I run it in my games is that the active or initiating character is the one making the check. It's important to remember that the dice are slightly weighted to the advantage of whomever is forming the dice pool.

This is the way I do it and I feel there is something needed to be said. If you run it the way you do, and most are suggesting the you run into a problem: If a player has an ability that's upgrades the difficulty of a foes check, increases the difficulty of that check, or adds threat dice to that check or flip sided of an npc gets boost dice, lowers difficulty or decrease difficulty for their own check then all of these modifiers suddenly become useless if the dice are always being rolled by the player because they only get applied when the player is not rolling.

Exactly. I agree with this (if I am not reading this right I am sorry). If you always have the PC roll you make it to where the NPCs are never successful both by roll and narrative because you have given the plot away. Some PCs can handle knowing the plot and some will take advantage of that knowledge. 1 out of 4 players will take advantage. The GM rolling in private will give them the idea that something isn't right in Denmark and the players become suspicious that way also. But ultimately the one that needs to roll is the NPC/PC initiating the the action.

kind of, while I agree it provides knowledge the players may not have I was more pointing out you make certain talents and buffs from things that would never apply. Ie if an npc gets a boost die to perception checks but they never make those checks because the player just makes stealth checks then that boost die never does anything, similarly if the enemy downgrades the difficulty for perception checks then they never get that because they're not rolling, etc

In other words your making a large chunk of the mechanics useless if you always have the players roll.

This is why I run it the same way as the player I quoted, in that whomever initiates the check rolls it. Ie if guards search for players the GM rolls for the NPC's but if the players are sneaking by guards then the PC's roll.

I think that is a very good explanation of the who, what where and why, and I agree, just the initiator should roll, but I feel that depending on that roll depends on possibly a reaction roll as I stated above. The dice can roll out to a degree of success but with a threat it could cause a slight problem like a noise causing the players to take notice and roll, or a failure which would cause the players not to have to roll. A success with a despair could be the players don't notice but the NPC slips off the ledge and catches him self with his hands losing the players. The dice in this system really allows for a lot of scenarios.

I also agree with vigilance instead of perception, but there has to be a trigger in my mind.

This is, like so many other discussions, a GM's final decision on how to play this, but refining the ideas a fitting them into play is what this is all about. As you can see the possibilities and opinions are endless. That's what the Devs had in mind when the developed this game.

The example was a ninja NPC basically stalking the PCs and the PCs not actively trying to find the ninja. Why would the PCs roll, you give them a clue that they need to be rolling and the GM gave away the story line whether or not the PCs fail.

You allow the PC to roll because they are the participant in the story the NPC isn't. When the player is given the job of rolling the dice it becomes his vested interest in the active running of the game.

As for the rest of what you say it is all a matter of when you roll the dice. Just because there is a ninja following the group you don't have to do anything at that instant you decide to have a ninja follow the group. Rather you wait. At the point where the story will resolve the action of having the ninja following the party roll dice, give the player who was actively looking his perception test, the go from there.

If you time the rolls right the players won't get to metagame, they will deal with the results of their actions with immeadiate consequence. The perception test is rolled then the ninja comes in to steal the Sword of McGuffin, the result of the perception test will impact on the nature of the following skill test and modify that.

If the ninja is spotted when he comes into camp there may be a trap, the players may fight him off or whatever, and the initiating roll(s) may get boost dice because of the successes or downgrade in difficulty. On the otherhand failure to spot the ninja will result in several setback dice or even upgrades in difficulty of the test.

The example was a ninja NPC basically stalking the PCs and the PCs not actively trying to find the ninja. Why would the PCs roll, you give them a clue that they need to be rolling and the GM gave away the story line whether or not the PCs fail.

You allow the PC to roll because they are the participant in the story the NPC isn't. When the player is given the job of rolling the dice it becomes his vested interest in the active running of the game.

As for the rest of what you say it is all a matter of when you roll the dice. Just because there is a ninja following the group you don't have to do anything at that instant you decide to have a ninja follow the group. Rather you wait. At the point where the story will resolve the action of having the ninja following the party roll dice, give the player who was actively looking his perception test, the go from there.

If you time the rolls right the players won't get to metagame, they will deal with the results of their actions with immeadiate consequence. The perception test is rolled then the ninja comes in to steal the Sword of McGuffin, the result of the perception test will impact on the nature of the following skill test and modify that.

If the ninja is spotted when he comes into camp there may be a trap, the players may fight him off or whatever, and the initiating roll(s) may get boost dice because of the successes or downgrade in difficulty. On the otherhand failure to spot the ninja will result in several setback dice or even upgrades in difficulty of the test.

And you take the possibility of the ninja making a mistake totally out of the equation. I did state that the ninja would be an expert at what they do, but mistakes can happen. Now that's why I said that the Ninja should be rolled for in private. So now the question there in lies, why give the ninja a stealth ability just to make it automatically successful until the right time for it not to be? PCs still roll a passive vigilance and now know that something is up and now become actively perceptive and as I stated before, for the most part there is at least 1 PC out of 4 that uses this information to his benefit just like a cheat code or hack in a console game. Again like I said GM's decision on how to play this, if the GM does not feel it is or will help the game narrative then don't allow the NPC to get a roll. I believe that allowing the NPC in that kind of situation to roll can bring the drama up in the narrative of the game, and that's what it is, situational.

What I am actually trying to say is this, I Believe there is no right or wrong answer. The GM determines everything on a situational basis.

PCs still roll a passive vigilance and now know that something is up and now become actively perceptive and as I stated before, for the most part there is at least 1 PC out of 4 that uses this information to his benefit just like a cheat code or hack in a console game.

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by this. If you mean the PC will use this to keep looking and initiate actions that they feel require you to give them more chances to detect something, the answer to the PC is "no". So they failed a Perception roll, it doesn't mean they know there's a ninja. It could be anything at all, from a 5 credit chit lying on the ground, to missing seeing an old friend they once knew sitting at a cafe, to a panhandler trying to pick their pocket, to an interesting parade 2 blocks over, to noticing poison ivy, to spotting an Imperial camera watching over the street. The point is they should have no idea why they had to roll, and you don't have to give them any extra chances to figure it out. Not all Perception checks are for imminent threats.

I suspect the problem here is that the GM might only be asking for Perception rolls when there are only combat threats. This is easy to fix. Once in a while (maybe once per session until the players get the picture) have them roll a Perception roll against a fictional dice pool. If they succeed you can tell them "Yes, you are absolutely sure that there is no suspicious activity targeting you in the area." Or if they succeed you can give them something innocuous, like a few credits.

And you take the possibility of the ninja making a mistake totally out of the equation. I did state that the ninja would be an expert at what they do, but mistakes can happen. Now that's why I said that the Ninja should be rolled for in private.

What is the point of rolling in private? The players have no idea whether you actually rolled what you rolled, why bother? The point of having the players roll is because the ninja *did* already make enough mistakes to be detectable. If the players fail, they'll have no idea what they failed at. If they succeed you can scale the "reveal" however you like, i.e.: just because they succeed doesn't mean the ninja is suddenly in a spotlight, his purpose and intent completely obvious. A simple success might mean the players think they're being followed, some guy in a cloak seems to be hanging back 1/2 a block. It might take several advantages to know the size, possible species, and gender. It might take a Triumph to get a clear face. Threat alerts the ninja that he's been spotted. Despair means the players have targeted the wrong person (and of course, you don't tell the players what the effect of the Despair is...).

If the ninja wasn't aware he was spotted, and the players want to try to grab him, they're now going to roll their Stealth against his Perception or Vigilance. If a chase ensues, then that is dealt with separately, and you can be sure to throw lots of setback dice around if you don't want the ninja to be caught.

I Believe there is no right or wrong answer. The GM determines everything on a situational basis.

This is always true, so not very useful as a guideline. I think it's more useful to default to letting the player roll. If there is a need for the NPC to roll, I haven't come across it yet.

I Believe there is no right or wrong answer. The GM determines everything on a situational basis.

This is always true, so not very useful as a guideline. I think it's more useful to default to letting the player roll. If there is a need for the NPC to roll, I haven't come across it yet.

The GM is that facilitator in the game, the player should be, always, the centre of attention.

In my scenario the player keeping an eye our rolls and fails. The player may then get another roll and should they fail that one the ninja will get the McGuffin. In the morning when the players wake up, they will have the understanding that they had the chance to prevent it going missing, they fluffed the dice and this is the result.

They have buy in to the event and may have even helped narrate the sequence of what happened.

When the GM rolls in secret, there is no buy in there is not acceptance and certainly no help in the narration of the event.

Once in a while (maybe once per session until the players get the picture) have them roll a Perception roll against a fictional dice pool. If they succeed you can tell them "Yes, you are absolutely sure that there is no suspicious activity targeting you in the area."

Meta-knowledge happens. The Player needs to learn to separate Player and Character knowledge and they need to learn to do this sooner than later. This is not a system designed to work the other way.

For that try 4e. It's designed around the concept of "passive skill checks" where the Player doesn't even know you're checking their Perception versus the Ninja's stealth or against a Trap or whatever.

Ah I do believe the core book does talk about private rolls and states that if done too often takes away from the game. as far as there being no narrative if the GM rolls in private, there will be if the GM is good, I already provided the narratives in previous examples although short ones.

Once in a while (maybe once per session until the players get the picture) have them roll a Perception roll against a fictional dice pool. If they succeed you can tell them "Yes, you are absolutely sure that there is no suspicious activity targeting you in the area."

I wouldn't do this. Just dock EXP if the Player starts having their act suspicious or prepare for an ambush.

That seems pretty penalizing. I was only talking about "training" players so they know how those rolls are used. I haven't actually had to do this since my second EotE session.

GM states to PC roll against vigilance, player rolls and does not succeed, then PC states he wants to roll perception cause he knows something is up. GM states no, this could dissolve into a bad experience because PC is already out of character. GM allows the PC to roll and tells the PC he doesn't notice anything even on a success then later states ninja is so good that any success would fail doesn't make since. We have all been at a table where these kinds of things happen, to include the PC out of character. So before this happens I as the GM roll stealth for ninja. Ninja succeeds PCs think I am playing with dice, Ninja fails, I go into my narrative as to exposing the ninja. Ninja succeeds with threat, PCs heard a scrape or so piques their interest.

Which is the easier answer? Its situational, both ways can be for everyone. Especially if the PCs are experienced and don't break character. But there are no Guarantees unless you know everyone very well. I for one wouldn't break character, and go with the flow, it is after all the GM's table.

GM states to PC roll against vigilance, player rolls and does not succeed, then PC states he wants to roll perception cause he knows something is up. GM states no, this could dissolve into a bad experience because PC is already out of character.

If they want to roll Perception, I'd say "You just did, that's what the Vigilance roll was for". Then I'd explain there are multiple "perception" skills depending on context. If the player is the type to pursue it, then no amount of "hidden rolls" are going to solve the problem, which rests with the player.