Yes I share the pain with you. It happens a lot to us. We are 1 GM and 8 players. Imagine the number of rolls we have, a ridiculous amount of triumph and advantages appear every "round". We like the universe and we like the "idea" of the dice, but we are getting increasingly frustrated. Specially lately that we are playing also the games of the Call of Cthulhu and The One Ring. There the rolls and everything is way faster than in SW FFG and the games "absorb" better the high number of players. Yet we like SW and the dice...well we keep on saying that it may be a matter of a learning curve, but truth is we played already for two years to Warhammer 3 so...

All the "fail forward" and "don't roll if you can't live with failure" advice is golden.

On the other end, you need to have failure mean something. This is something that the Burning Wheel/Mouse Guard games are big into. You can't keep rolling and rolling waiting for a result you want. When you fail a roll, then it is for keeps.

If they tried to unlock the door and fail, then they just can't open it unless they can significantly change the situation.

This doesn't mesh with being allowed to fire at enemies every turn of combat, regardless of how often one fails...

Some conflicts can't be (satisfactorily) resolved with just one roll. Combat, chases, large social encounters ... they all are best modeled with multiple rolls. Now, technically failures in those cases do have consequences – the fight continues and you may take more damage, your pursuer catches up, etc – but the real consequences to the story are bound to the results of the conflict as a whole – i.e. the fight is won or lost, the chased ship escapes or is captured, etc.

You could take that same door unlocking scenario and break it into turns, like (as noted above) if it were under a time pressure. In that case the consequences for a failed roll wouldn't be that the door couldn't open, but instead that time is wasted, while advancing towards the consequences of failing the entire conflict.

... but, if you have just one roll that decides everything, then failure should be a final answer (just as much as success is).

You could take that same door unlocking scenario and break it into turns, like (as noted above) if it were under a time pressure. In that case the consequences for a failed roll wouldn't be that the door couldn't open, but instead that time is wasted, while advancing towards the consequences of failing the entire conflict.

If there was no time pressure, I wouldn't bother having them roll to pick a lock.

I feel your pain regarding the dice. I've become known as the man that makes bad guys drop their weapons in a firefight...constantly rolling no successes but just enough advantages to force a weapon drop.

Hi all,

A little off topic but it's possible to construct a dice rolling attempt resolution mechanic where this isn't a problem. For example in my home brew system (3D), you always roll 3 dice between a d4 and a d12. You have a die for each of the 4 attributes (Acuity, Brawn, Charisma, and Dexterity), you have a die for each skill (d4 for anything you haven't trained in), and equipment can also provide dice. The GM can specify one skill that is required for the pool but other than that, anything that the players can narratively justify is fair game (I had a player use the wealth skill on a stealth chech, in addition to the stealth skill, he gave the one night stand he was trying to ditch some gold to buy a pretty bauble as a token of his "affection" which was a distraction so he could slip away). Back to the point... after rolling the dice they are sorted into descending order (so that the "first die" is the one with the largest rolled result) success/failure is determined by the first die, which since it's the one with the largest rolled result means success is the typical outcome. For attacks the damage dealt is the sum of the second and third dice. Damage reduction is subtracted from that so the "typical" (meaning most likely) results is a few points of damage. I got a PhD doing Uncertainty Quantification so having a dice mechanic with good statistics (meaning statistics that work well) was important to me. I suspect that most gamers don't recognize how poor the dice statistics in the games they play are because they have never seen a RPG where dice rolling had good statistics. I also have the idea of advantage, basically any maximal die (e.g. a 4 on a d4 or a 12 on a d12) generates one advantage, one advantage lets you step up one die on your next roll. 3 advantage let's you score a critical hit (damage is double the first die and it ignores damage reduction). My destiny pool mechanic (a set aside set of d4 through d12 that you can swap rolled dice into and out of) let's you save up maximal dice so that you can trigger a critical hit when you want to (but it's still rate limited). I also have a karma pool mechanic that is a bit like FFG's destiny pool (double sided black white chips) crossed with destiny points and dark side points from Saga edition, so a player can flip a white karma chip to black to trigger a critical hit or cause an attack against them to miss.

My group and I have only been playing for 4 sessions now and the group is already frustrated with the randomness of the dice and the fact that the dice are stacked toward failure.

I definitely agree with the comments about bazaar tings happening. The group cant climb down an easy rope but they can free scale a daunting cliff like champs. It is just strange sometimes.

We made a house rule change before the last game and it seemed to make a difference in how the players perceive the dice. We simple switched the requirement for success being no un-canceled failures instead of at least one un-cancelled success.

I find the dice don't work well with a "roll for every little thing" style of play. The system really shines on actions where something really is at stake and a lot could go right or wrong.

If something is easy and success is expected, then don't get the dice involved.

My group and I have only been playing for 4 sessions now and the group is already frustrated with the randomness of the dice and the fact that the dice are stacked toward failure.

How do you figure 'the dice are stacked toward failure'?

As much as I love the dice system and the story telling it supports, there are times when it frustrates me to no end. Last night my group was trying to get into a locked door. They kept rolling zero successes and a bunch of advantages. Each time I let them switch up the technique used to open the door. They tried Mechanics, Skuldugery, Computers, and even ripping the door off its hinges. Every check was either average or hard and the players were rolling 3-5 dice each. The successes just wernt coming last night.

This can happen with any RPG that rolls dice.

I hate to tell you Stargun, your math is a little off. While the odds are not balanced, the odds do go in the favor to green, yellow and blue dice. All of this has been discussed in other forums and threads. There are many studies that I have seen that proves the dice system is not stacked towards failure. I am no math expert, nor am I into statistics and all that. I'm sorry that you feel that this system is cheating you somehow, but I assure you it is not. If you really want to look at all the math and stuff, check out this page.

http://maxmahem.net/wp/star-wars-edge-of-the-empire-die-probabilities/

I know with my group, my guys are usually rolling only a couple of purple and a black against a couple green, a yellow or two, and usually a boost or two.

I have been in many D20 games where I had better roll a 20, or I'm not doing anything...

It has been my experience the almost every GM/DM seems to set the difficulties on the high side, no matter the game or the system.

I think this could be a whole new thread, but what is wrong with just throwing an average skill test if the skill test is indeed average?

If something is easy and success is expected, then don't get the dice involved.

Or, if you do want to use dice, then use them to tell you how long it takes to complete the task.

And then maybe you can put the players under time pressure — can they get out of the garbage compactor unit before they all die?

One thing i see a lot of people not understanding (and resulting is a lot of threads like "paper starfighters") is the fact that in this system you're not rolling to see if you managed to pick the lock or not. Is not simple Boolean result (or more complex results with degrees of successes).

You're rolling to see how much narrative resources you have (and failures are resources too!), not how well you performed on the task at hand!

Realizing this subtle difference and the question you're trying to answer will the dice roll will help you create more powerful outcomes.

This is true to all systems, but in this one this is particularly this is even more important: your rolls are as powerful as your imagination can be.

I agree with n4n0 (cute name for a droid?). In OP's case, the rolls might have indicated they didn't actually make the attempt. Instead, they noticed the BRT (aka Big Round Thing) was out of calibration and a slight power surge would likely aid in failing the lock. It takes longer (which it should since they rolled) but they're making the task easier, not just rolling over and over.

I also agree with the "don't roll... " advice but I take that to mean that the adventure shouldn't be structured that way, not that players get a free pass. If they HAVE TO get through that door, the GM should make sure there are multiple solutions - and not all of them having to do with bypassing security with a single or set of related rolls.

Order a pizza and wait for someone to pick it up. Go up an adjacent building, cross over and go in through the roof. Thermal detonator! Cut power. Start a small fire. Find someone with a key and 'borrow' it.

If the players are too thick-headed to do anything but rolling the same task over and over, the GM should simply tell them, "Look, at this point, the lock is simply beyond you. Maybe you can go practice and come back in a week but, for now, you'd better start planning a new way through." Failures happen!

I hate to tell you Stargun, your math is a little off. While the odds are not balanced, the odds do go in the favor to green, yellow and blue dice. All of this has been discussed in other forums and threads. There are many studies that I have seen that proves the dice system is not stacked towards failure. I am no math expert, nor am I into statistics and all that. I'm sorry that you feel that this system is cheating you somehow, but I assure you it is not. If you really want to look at all the math and stuff, check out this page.

http://maxmahem.net/wp/star-wars-edge-of-the-empire-die-probabilities/

I know with my group, my guys are usually rolling only a couple of purple and a black against a couple green, a yellow or two, and usually a boost or two.

I have been in many D20 games where I had better roll a 20, or I'm not doing anything...

It has been my experience the almost every GM/DM seems to set the difficulties on the high side, no matter the game or the system.

His blog post is very impressive but his math is incorrect because it is predicated on a wrong number at the start. To truly calculate the failure to success rate it is achieving on or more successes so his base 62.5% is actually incorrect. because there are only 4 sides of an 8 sided dice with success result. Thus the dice only has a 50% chance of rolling one or more successes.

It isn't that simple.

If I toss two coins there are 4 results, if I toss a green and purple dice there are 64 distinct results, 2 green and 2 purple are 4096 results. I left high school too long ago to remember the calculations for all that mess, but I will stand by the statement. "It isn't that simple".

Also, if you are rolling 1 dice you are rolling against your "dump stat" and it will be a challenge. I wouldn't want to base my discussion of dice probabilities on a single dice when that is an extreem case.

Like I said, I am no mathematician, but, sorry, you are still incorrect. You are using two different and unrelated arguments to reach one fallible conclusion. You propose that because the are 4 sides with success (S) on the green die, that there is a 50/50 chance of it being rolled. According to the laws of statistics, this is not the case. The chances are not quite exactly that. But that aside, you then state that if adding in a purple die, your chances of getting that (S) is further reduced. Not true. You have to look at the total amount of (S) to (F) ratios. This is what he did on his site. He is looking at the total probability of the (S). Not the number of sides.

" Calculating the probability on a single die is actually not that bad. Simply count the number of success, advantages, threats, failures, or despairs on the die and divide by the number of faces on the die. This gets you the average number of successes, advantages, threats, failures, triumphs, or despairs respectively on a single roll of the die. To calculate the odds of double success/failure or double despair/advantage simply calculate the odds of rolling each face independently. The results are summarised below, or you can check out the source document on google docs."

On the green die there area total of 5 (S) on the purple there only 4 (F). This is where you break your logic. You insinuate that because the chance to roll a (S) is 50/50, that adding in a die with less number (F) lowers your chance at (S). FACT: If I roll both the green and purple I have a slightly higher chance of rolling the (S). When we start to add in the other types of die, our numbers can get really large on the possible number of outcomes. The red die has 9 (F), the yellow has 10 (S).

Also, rolling one die against another die is not very common. If you only roll one green die, that is a unskilled check that should have a chance of failure even at an easy difficulty. A unskilled check is typically two green die, and if it is an easy difficulty then our chance of success is huge. I have a total of of 10 (S) as opposed to to 4 (F). I fail to see how you think this is geared towards failure. In any game, a low level stat has a good chance of failure at even an easy task. In D6, it would be 2D6 with a difficulty of 10. Not a huge chance for success. In D20, I might have a +2 and a difficulty 10-15, so I need a die roll of 8-10+.

So in conclusion, you had set out with a goal in mind, and are trying to make an argument to prove the outcome that you want. You make the assertion that because there are four sides with the (S) that this means it has a 50/50 chance, and then also use the purple dice to further draw down the chance of success; this is not a true statement. Like I said there are many other websites and forum posts and threads about this. I'm sure you will not believe me, but go do the research yourself, and if you have an open mind, you will see that your statement about how this system is stacked towards failure is false.

If your game is stacked against you, that is the fault of the one running the system, not the system it's self.

P.S.

The Force die has a similar situation. There are more sides that have black pips, but a total greater number of white pips. So what are my chances? It is true that I have a higher CHANCE to roll a black pip, but I have a higher PROBABILITY to roll a white pip. These two terms are very closely related, but do not mean the same thing.

Adding to the "Plot > Rolling" points, if it's really important to the story and grinds the campaign to a halt until bypassed, then it should be bypassed.

Often times I've noticed that GMs tend to ignore advantages and disadvantages in rolls. With five advantages the party definitely should have had something beneficial happen right off the bat. Such as finding a hidden key, spotting another access point, realizing that the lock is weak (adding to help break it if attempted), or something of that nature.

Yeah, but the problem is the language used with the dice is very definitive. When you use the word "success" or "failure" that means something pretty black and white. And the way the rules are worded in preponderance, the successes and failures establish the basis that advantages and disadvantages modify. If it's possible for sufficient advantages and disadvantages to do an end run around the basal success or failure, the rules needed to say so. You gotta mean what you say.

Like I said, I am no mathematician, but, sorry, you are still incorrect. You are using two different and unrelated arguments to reach one fallible conclusion. You propose that because the are 4 sides with success (S) on the green die, that there is a 50/50 chance of it being rolled.

What is the chance of rolling a 1,2,3 or 4 on a D8?

Like I said, I am no mathematician, but, sorry, you are still incorrect.

So, there’s two things here. One is the probability that a given side of a die will come up. The other is the total probability of one or more results of a particular type coming up, given a large enough sample of rolls.

The former is pretty black and white. The latter requires a "Monte Carlo" simulation to work out some of the nuances. Fortunately, Litheon has already written a program to do the Monte Carlo simulation for you, and that thread can be found at http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/108337-dice-probability-generator/ .

IMO, any further discussion of the topic of statistical dice probabilities outside the context of these programs, is likely to be … less than useful, if not suspect.

Like I said, I am no mathematician, but, sorry, you are still incorrect. You are using two different and unrelated arguments to reach one fallible conclusion. You propose that because the are 4 sides with success (S) on the green die, that there is a 50/50 chance of it being rolled.

What is the chance of rolling a 1,2,3 or 4 on a D8?

12.5%.

[sNIPPED]

P.S.

The Force die has a similar situation. There are more sides that have black pips, but a total greater number of white pips. So what are my chances? It is true that I have a higher CHANCE to roll a black pip, but I have a higher PROBABILITY to roll a white pip. These two terms are very closely related, but do not mean the same thing.

Most of this post was IMHO false, but I wanted to focus on this part.

You seem to be a little confused on probability. Probability is the mathematical measurement which shows the likely hood of an event's results. Chance is the statement of it. In language, it is a grammar issue. The chance of rolling a white pip is less than that of rolling a black. I think what you meant to say is this, "If white is rolled, there is a greater probability of there being 2 pips than there is if a black was rolled.

Force Die:

• White = 41.66%

-- 2 pips = 60%

• Black = 58.33%

-- 2 pips = 14.29%

The probability of rolling a white pip is 41.66% and there is a 60% chance it will result in 2 pips.

The probability of rolling a black pip is 58.33% and there is a 14.29% chance it will result in 2 pips.

Probability of rolling a white pip is less than that of rolling a black pip, end of line.

EDIT: P.s.

There are 8 total black pips and 8 total white pips by the way. I don't know where you saw more white than black.

Adding to the "Plot > Rolling" points, if it's really important to the story and grinds the campaign to a halt until bypassed, then it should be bypassed.

Often times I've noticed that GMs tend to ignore advantages and disadvantages in rolls. With five advantages the party definitely should have had something beneficial happen right off the bat. Such as finding a hidden key, spotting another access point, realizing that the lock is weak (adding to help break it if attempted), or something of that nature.

Yeah, but the problem is the language used with the dice is very definitive. When you use the word "success" or "failure" that means something pretty black and white. And the way the rules are worded in preponderance, the successes and failures establish the basis that advantages and disadvantages modify. If it's possible for sufficient advantages and disadvantages to do an end run around the basal success or failure, the rules needed to say so. You gotta mean what you say.

Success and failure only effects the roll attempted.

"[An advantage] indicates an opportunity for a positive consequence or side effect, regardless of the task's success or failure. " (pg 12 EoTE) Emphasis mine.

The check to attempt to bypass the lock can fail or succeed but with 5 advantages something good is going to happen regardless. This can be related to the task or not related at all but it is beneficial to the party in some way. Finding a hidden key or noticing that the venting nearby is loose and may provide another way in is a perfect way to show the effect of that many advantages even with failing to open the door. Again, this is regardless of the task itself.

The whole advantage/disadvantage system was added to combat the whole, binary success/failure problems slowing games and distracting from the story that most games tend to suffer from.

12.5%.

The probability of rolling a 1 is 12.5%.

​The probability of rolling a 2 is 12.5%.

​The probability of rolling a 3 is 12.5%.

​The probability of rolling a 4 is 12.5%.

The probability of rolling a 1,2,3, or 4 is 50%.

Adding to the "Plot > Rolling" points, if it's really important to the story and grinds the campaign to a halt until bypassed, then it should be bypassed.

Often times I've noticed that GMs tend to ignore advantages and disadvantages in rolls. With five advantages the party definitely should have had something beneficial happen right off the bat. Such as finding a hidden key, spotting another access point, realizing that the lock is weak (adding to help break it if attempted), or something of that nature.

Yeah, but the problem is the language used with the dice is very definitive. When you use the word "success" or "failure" that means something pretty black and white. And the way the rules are worded in preponderance, the successes and failures establish the basis that advantages and disadvantages modify. If it's possible for sufficient advantages and disadvantages to do an end run around the basal success or failure, the rules needed to say so. You gotta mean what you say.

It's not necessarily as definitive as all that. Sure, the wording is "success" and "failure", but it doesnt have to mean that just because you got a failed check that you literally failed at what you were trying to do.

The GM is totally within their prerogative to say that whatever happens, you succeed in slicing the door computer, but a 'failure' means that either it takes so long that enemy reinforcements are waiting for you on the other side, or that something else bad happens.

The GM can specify that you're basically rolling to try to see how well you succeed.

Because the OP asked for bizarre stories...

In a recent game, ou rwookiee melee brute was doing some combat training with our bounty hunter. The wookiee, who's reasonable agile but a poor shot, was rolling nothing but advantages, which was funny for everyone but him. When he complained that the bounty hunter's armor made it an artificially difficulty test (they were shooting at each other like bros), he started calling other crew members over, all who hit. Finally, I was called. My character is hands down the worst shot in the party, so I expected to shoot myself more than anything. But I pointed down range, squeezed the trigger, got a ton of advantage and a single success, which we narrated as me shooting the bounty hunter's blaster out of his hand, followed by me hopping back onto the ship before the wookiee tore my arms off.

You just have to find a way to have fun with the results, or find a way to make them work.