We had an instance where a character used Influence>Control and it failed. How long before he can use it again? "No these REALLY aren't the droids you are looking for." Or should he even be able to? Maybe just say this mind is too strong for you and you can never try to influence it.

It was out of combat in an extended discussion. Time really wasn't a factor.

Which leads me to the question, in situations where time is not a factor and retries are fine, can we assume a character gets max on rolls for basic powers like Sense, Seek, and Move and a power like Influence>Control? If not when they fail when can they retry?

Qui-Gon Jinn : I have twenty thousand Republic dataries.
Watto : Republic credits? Republic credits are no good out here. I need something more real.
Qui-Gon Jinn : I don't have anything else...
[waves hand]
Qui-Gon Jinn : But credits will do fine.
Watto : No, they won't-a.
[Qui-Gon waves his hand more firmly]
Qui-Gon Jinn : Credits will do fine.
Watto : No, they won't-a. What? You think you're some kind of Jedi, waving your hand around like that? I'm a Toydarian. Mind tricks don't work on me. Only money. No money, no parts, no deal!

If it were an RPG session, Lucas may have thrown in the bit about mind tricks not working on Toydarians as an on-the-fly justification for his mind trick failing, but you could easily just say the adversary is too strong willed to be influenced like that. You can also make the argument that Qui-gon attempted the influence check twice, but you could also argue that the entire dialog was based on a single check.

It's important to note the difference between character knowledge and player knowledge in this instance. The player knew he failed because he was unable to generate the necessary dice results, but the character just knows that his power was ineffective against the target. "The Force can a have strong influence on the weak minded", obviously this particular person does not have a weak mind. No need to try again and let them on to what you are trying to do.

As for your question in general, the general consensus should be that a failure is a failure. A check represents your best effort within the current circumstances. Unless the circumstances change, you failed that check giving it your best effort.

(Edit: ninja'd by kaosoe!) But adding a few other things:

Generally if time is not a factor there's little pointing in rolling. But I'd avoid those situations like a plague. Time is *always* a factor. Even long periods of downtime can be timed, and for those I usually only allow a single roll, e.g.: you're fixing the ship for 8 hours, that's 4 hull points +/- whatever you roll for Mechanics at Average difficulty (failures reduce the number of hull points).

If your example, if they failed an Influence check, I'd just make the target suspicious or even hostile. That might start an encounter, where time, among other things, suddenly becomes a factor.

Thanks. To be clear I have no problem narrating why something did not work.

It's the trying again that's tricky.

The problem is it's pretty clear you can retry Force Powers that fail, like Move or the Influence basic power. Why not Influence>Control?

However I've given this some more thought and I think the specific case of Influence>Control is pretty special and by definition necessitates a case by case ruling. It just requires a bit of buy-in from the PC absent a hard rule like you can retry in five minutes/one round.

And great point about the character's perspective.

We had an instance where a character used Influence>Control and it failed. How long before he can use it again? "No these REALLY aren't the droids you are looking for." Or should he even be able to? Maybe just say this mind is too strong for you and you can never try to influence it.

This is actually a more general RPG question regarding repeated tries -- if I fail a check, can I keep rolling until I succeed?

There are many long-winded answers to this question, and many core books devote pages to those answers, but going for a succinct formulation here: the check basically answers the question of "does the PC resolve the situation favorably using this approach?" The skill check answers the question, and once answered, deal with the consequences and move the story along.

The corollary question then becomes, "Is this check necessary? will it resolve a dramatic question?" This is the duty of the GM to ensure skill checks are not frivolous or gamed -- (GM's game this, too, making players roll until they fail, and then moving the action along based on unfavorable circumstances for the party.)

So, to answer this instance, if you fail to pursuade the troopers, by whatever means, that these are not the droids they are looking for, knowing that this is Star Wars, and an action game, what do you think should happen? Thats' right, a fight.

This is completely applicable to other, non-opposed situations. Let's say your Jedi encounters a really big stone blocking a door he must get through. If the GM has decided, based on how he's planned the adventure, that there's a dramatic question here. You can roll your Force dice to Move the stone once and live with the results. Maybe he doesn't have enough pips to move the stone -- he's not as great as he thinks he is, or his faith in the Force isn't strong enough. Maybe he'd have to spend dark pips to complete the task -- all these things reveal something about the character. Maybe he fails and the heavy just pulls out a charge, along with a snide remark, to demolish it.

Now, if the barrier wasn't a dramatic question, and assuming you had the strength upgrades, this is just a chance to show how awesome the party is. No roll required: you just throw the stone aside, you stud...

Nice feedback Lorne. I think I'm already headed this way. I think I might be a lot more in the player's favor with the "Is the check required?" question for the non-opposed checks. I'm fine with assuming a player can max move given no time restraints. Chased by trooper to move the boulder, yeah that's a roll.

And for opposed checks I think a retry is ok circumstantially as with this system (with threat, advantage, triumph, and despair) there are more consequences than just failure or success with any roll.

Like say the initial Influence is a failure with three threat and a triumph. OK it's not working and you take three strain. But a tech interrupts the conversation with some forms for the guard to sign (and you get a peek at the forms for the prisoner cell you are looking for). After that he looks back at you and says, "Now where were we?" PC says "Oh, I was saying we need to check the power converters in the detention center..." GM says ok but I'm spending a destiny to upgrade and a despair is not going to go well...

"Do or do not. There is no try."

Unless circumstances change. One and only one check. Also, I had to quote Yoda... I just had to.

Attempting a check multiple times takes away from the drama and if the plot hangs on the check, the GM needs to work harder.

"Do or do not. There is no try."

Unless circumstances change. One and only one check. Also, I had to quote Yoda... I just had to.

Attempting a check multiple times takes away from the drama and if the plot hangs on the check, the GM needs to work harder.

Just so I'm understanding you, in combat do you allow retries of Force Powers like influence and move if they fail on a target? Or are you only talking about out of combat?

Just so I'm understanding you, in combat do you allow retries of Force Powers like influence and move if they fail on a target? Or are you only talking about out of combat?

It would have to be out of combat. No re-trying a skill roll during combat unless you've got the appropriate talent (which for Force rolls would be Natural Mystic).

Just so I'm understanding you, in combat do you allow retries of Force Powers like influence and move if they fail on a target? Or are you only talking about out of combat?

I think he meant "out of combat".

Just so I'm understanding you, in combat do you allow retries of Force Powers like influence and move if they fail on a target? Or are you only talking about out of combat?

It would have to be out of combat. No re-trying a skill roll during combat unless you've got the appropriate talent (which for Force rolls would be Natural Mystic).

Not sure, but I think usgrandprix meant "in a new turn". In which case...of course. Each Action is a separate distinct attempt, if you fail in your first Action you can always try again on your next. It's not really a "retry" any more than a shot with a blaster is a retry.

Maybe the Destiny Pool is a mechanic you could use to adjudicate this. Ok, you want to retry this strategy that failed once? I'm not going to stop you, but since it is not moving the narrative along in a more interesting way, I'm going to ask you to flip a destiny point. While you're dicking around trying to cheat that junk dealer, Mr. Maul's on the move.

"Do or do not. There is no try."

Unless circumstances change. One and only one check. Also, I had to quote Yoda... I just had to.

Attempting a check multiple times takes away from the drama and if the plot hangs on the check, the GM needs to work harder.

Just so I'm understanding you, in combat do you allow retries of Force Powers like influence and move if they fail on a target? Or are you only talking about out of combat?

Yes, out of combat... I'm not about to say that if you missed your Melee check, you cannot hit that enemy, ever!

Personally, I'd allow rerolls. For social interaction, such as the ol' Jedi Mind Trick, I would personally add a Setback die to the Jedi's Discipline check, even if there are no other difficulty dice. As was noted previously, Qui-Gon did attempt another use of the Jedi Mind Trick on Watto. Not only did it not work, however, it caused Watto to be suspicious that he was a Jedi. I'd say that was probably a Threat.

I think qui-gon cheating at dice was what made him suspicious. Or at least mad.

Intentionally or not, sometimes you end up designing an obstacle that must be overcome (or at least, the party sees it that way) for the story to continue. Well, the easiest way to deal with this is to just let them through -- sometimes you realize on-the-spot that a particular obstacle that you've designed just isn't going to be fun or add anything.

However, if you don't want to make something quite that easy, you can also just impose a consquence for failure, and make sure the difficulty isn't too high. In this game, that would probably be strain, or perhaps even wound loss -- or perhaps it's time that is lost (e.g. chasing a mcguffin [or maybe only the perception that time is of the essence, and repeated rolls are just there to make the players nervous]). Either way, you've then reframed the challenge not as "can the players solve X in a particular way" but "how much resource are they going to spend getting past it"? That's basically the same question that a simple-to-medium difficulty combat asks.

Agreed. Very rarely does failure at a non-combat roll actually produce failure in my games. More often it represents time aster, additional resources squandered, inaccurate results, and etc.

Even in the d20 games run, failure doesn't mean "failure" but especially in a game system such as starwars, failure should still lead you somewhere, the story should definitely account for a couple failures here or there.

A good example is in the beta adventure. Just because PCs might not succeed at a roll doesn't mean they've failed the action. Instead, maybe they left evidence of their break in for supplies, took too long sneaking out the perimeter so they require extra survival checks, or have a tracking beacon planted on Them by another "vacationer."

Few things intimidate players more than failing at three to four rolls in a row, and not seeing immidiate results for it. At the end of a the session, a quick cut scene that explains the consequences of those failures can really propell a story forward, and build a hunted feeling. Kinda like the episode of firefly where the two by two folks come and harass the alliance crew after mal and his ship are gone.