Hello there! First, this is about players rolling not NPCS. Second, i already let them decide what to do with successes and advantages in combat and 'non-story-related' rolls, like searching for random supplies.

What really bugs me is how to deal it when story relevant npcs are being questioned. My urge is to simple take over. How do you deal with it?

Ps.: I started letting them decide what to do with both advantages and threats but they decided to let the threats and failures to me.

Could you give an example?

Anything your players may offer is just a suggestion regardless of what the dice roll is for. Even in combat you can overrule them and apply the dice roll in a completely different manner.

I negotiate with the merchant and roll 1 Success and 1 Advantage:
Player: He offers me a 50% discount and free delivery
GM: He’ll give you a 5% discount and it will cost 20cr delivered to you ship.

After a while if you remain fair and consistent the players will start to work with you more, and you will then find that you are overruling them less.

When a player is negotiating Advantage during combat, they already know what's going on and how they can turn things to their, um, advantage. Both as a player and as a GM, I generally accept most recommendations, albeit having to tone it down (or up) based on the number of Advantage present.

When they're questioning NPCs (I assume as in interrogating them?) they don't really know what's going on. They might have an idea of what the person in question would be willing to offer up, but really, if they knew what they were after then they wouldn't need to question anybody. You have control over the information they're seeking and can objectively judge how much they might obtain.

Of course, you can't be unreasonable about what they get. If they succeed with a Triumph, you better believe that person is going to spill their guts, or at least everything directly related to what the PCs asked for. If they get Advantages on top of that, then the NPC will probably throw in extra details, free of charge.

That said, I love the negotiation this encourages between players and GMs. It's a good habit to get into for other RPGs.

The general suggestion from FFG is that GM decides NPC Advantages/Triumphs and PC's Threats/Despairs. Players decides Advantages/Triumphs unless GM consider that s/he must choose and, with the consideration of the GM, player can decide NPC's Threats/Despair. (Pg 205)

So, my suggestion is that with "on-screen" NPC, use that rules. Off-screen NPC's action are just determined by your own decisions.

And as third tip, always remember the Golden Rule: Have fun and common sense. If there is something that you don't like about your games, comment it to your friends and, also ask about what they feel or want about this

What really bugs me is how to deal it when story relevant npcs are being questioned. My urge is to simple take over. How do you deal with it?

Are you talking about how to use advantages, etc to get information from story-relevant NPCs? If so, this does require some pre-planning, and you can certainly take over. I found both Beyond the Rim and Jewel of Yavin very useful for show-casing how to structure that kind of thing. Basically you have a chart for each NPC or information source, and the number of advantages or triumphs required to get the info. So you might set up ahead of time:

NPC 1 - the shopkeeper across the street. He's afraid, and only gives up information grudgingly. Success means he's talking to you at all. Charm provides an automatic Advantage, while Coercion provides an automatic Threat.

1A - saw a humanoid shape fleeing from the store after the alarm went off

2A - the shape was holding a ranged weapon of some kind

2A - the shape was clearly female

3A - the ranged weapon looked like a disruptor

...etc

So if they score 2A on their roll they can: spend 1 to get the first info and recover 1 Strain; spend 2 to get either of the 2A info-nuggets

If they score 4A on their roll they can get the 3A and the 1A, or both 2As, or whatever. You can even ask the players: do you want the 3A info, or both the 2As?

This also comes out in what questions they're asking. If the PCs know the general information they're looking for, have them come up with questions that can be answer both directly (based on successes) and with additional or tangential detail (based on advantages).

I think overall, when the PCs are looking for information they don't have, you are going to have to take the lead in what information they get, as CaptainRaspberry said.

One alternate I just thought up (haven't tried yet): have the NPC drop hints or "accidently" let slip something that leads them down a better line of questioning. This can be fun if your group enjoys the roleplaying part of RPGs and solving puzzles.

Thanks for the answers guys! I was afraid i wasn't getting something obvious. But, based the answers, i think i was just worrying too much.

Thank you!

But, based the answers, i think i was just worrying too much.

A frequent problem with these narrative-based systems. Don't get worked up over it, just roll with the punches.

Have your group listen to Skill Monkey, theres a lot of good advice on how to use the skills and what to do with rolls. Plus they're short and entertaining.

http://www.madadventurers.com/category/field-recordings/skill-monkey/

As for how to value Advantages use the charts in the CRB as a guide but also think about a range of outcomes from what the Best outcome could be just short of a Triumph (which should be the Best outcome) to the minimum Good outcome and divide it up into say 3-4 "levels" with each level corresponding to an Advantage. So lets say you determine a vender's maximum discount would be 40% and the the least good would be he only overcharges 10% instead of 20%. With one advantage the PC only gets overcharged 10% and with 3 advantages they get a 20% discount all the way to a Triumph where they get the full 40%.

The same would work with information. Determine the most information the NPC would/could tell the PCs and the minimum information you need the PCs to know to help them out, again divide that information into 3-4 increasingly valuable chunks with each better chunk costing an additional Advantage. ( Note: Always give the PCs at least the minimum amount of info to keep the story going, never require a roll for story critical information or stuff , the information or whatever you give with a Success and advantages on this type of roll should be extra, helpful stuff ).

Again the same can go for anything such searching a room or a databank for information, or even just stumbling along in a desert somewhere. Just choose the Best outcome and the minimum good outcome and go from there.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

If the players are having fun, keep doing what you're doing

What really bugs me is how to deal it when story relevant npcs are being questioned. My urge is to simple take over. How do you deal with it?

At my table, everyone brainstorms on every roll. If you've got a good idea on how to use that despair or advantage, it doesn't matter if you were involved or not, if it was an NPC or not. Any and all awesome ideas are considered.

I may not act upon that idea (or work some kind of variation into the game), but I'll take any ideas from any source.

I've been having trouble adjudicating 4+ advantage. The Core book's table provides examples up to 3A. However, when my players get 4A or 5A, instead of wanting to break it down into multiple smaller chunks, they want some crazy big over the top effect. Think Triumph with a Destiny point added in. (The rocket hits the building causing the roof to collapse but the PC inside isn't hurt because he happened to be standing under a hole in the roof - not an exaggeration) They are used to narrative systems and creating FATE like aspects come naturally to them, but sometimes it feel over powered. When I suggest something a little more balanced, I get the "well he did get 5 Advantage, that should be worth something."

I'm like yes, he can recover strain, give a boost and give a setback. I think that's pretty powerful for a single check.

What do other GM's do with 4 or more advantage?

I've been having trouble adjudicating 4+ advantage. The Core book's table provides examples up to 3A. However, when my players get 4A or 5A, instead of wanting to break it down into multiple smaller chunks, they want some crazy big over the top effect. Think Triumph with a Destiny point added in. (The rocket hits the building causing the roof to collapse but the PC inside isn't hurt because he happened to be standing under a hole in the roof - not an exaggeration) They are used to narrative systems and creating FATE like aspects come naturally to them, but sometimes it feel over powered. When I suggest something a little more balanced, I get the "well he did get 5 Advantage, that should be worth something."

I'm like yes, he can recover strain, give a boost and give a setback. I think that's pretty powerful for a single check.

What do other GM's do with 4 or more advantage?

To me 4 or more advantages has the same power as one triumph.

To me 4 or more advantages has the same power as one triumph.

Agreed. I'd give them the option to use up all Advantage at 4 or over as a single Triumph or break it down into smaller usable units.

What do other GM's do with 4 or more advantage?

It really depends on the scope of the check and the risk entailed with failure. Is the reward proportionate to the risk, and to the situation at hand?

I am all for over the top effects. 5 Advantage on a blaster shot to destroy the rival's blaster rifle & knock him down? Sure. But on a nemesis, no: it'd be enough to disarm him and maybe knock him down. Or perhaps some effect on the middle-range of the critical injury table.

4 Advantage on a grenade attack could activate the blast quality and NOT catch your allies in the blast. 5 advantage might extend the blast radius, or cause a knockdown or disorienting effect.

Bringing a whole building down and sparing one target inside? What was the check for?

To me 4 or more advantages has the same power as one triumph.

I wouldn't go for that, it's too easy. And once you're rolling 3 yellows, Triumphs aren't exactly rare. Triumphs should be special, not emulated by something else.

Honestly, the only times I've had a problem spending Advantages on a roll was when, in retrospect, I realized I shouldn't have asked the players for a roll in the first place. For the rest, there's always a way to break down a collection of advantages. But then, I'm often using Strain as a currency on Threat, so Advantages to recover Strain are always welcome.

To me 4 or more advantages has the same power as one triumph.

Agreed. I'd give them the option to use up all Advantage at 4 or over as a single Triumph or break it down into smaller usable units.

Nooooooooooo.........!!!!!!!!

Seriously though, although it would seem that having so many Advantages should in essence be the same as a Triumph it shouldn't be played as such. Triumphs are only available on Yellow Dice, which require that you are Trained in a Skill or you blow a Destiny Point and so a PC should never get the equivalent of a Triumph unless they actually roll one. They're supposed to be special'er so even though there are options that a PC can spend a Triumph in exchange for a number of Advantages it shouldn't work the other way around.

One problem my friends and I have had was the rather mechanical nature of using the dice. “I’ll use four advantage to get back my strain and give him a blue dice on is next action.” Which generally makes narration harder as now the players aren’t looking for a good story they are moving on in their minds and getting ready for who is next.

The rules are nothing more than suggestions, feel free to go off and make up something that drives your own story forwards.

The good guy and bad guy are each on their wound threshold, the players shoots and misses but rolls 6 advantage, the bad guy will act next, what would you do? I had the shot weaken the corroded floor and drop the bad guy down a level, he was disorientated and as such a player slot would become available before his. The only player left was at best a fair shot, but it gave the players a chance.

I think the dice system is the best part of this game, but if you allow it to become mechanical and rote it can be the worst part of the game too.

What do other GM's do with 4 or more advantage?

Bringing a whole building down and sparing one target inside? What was the check for?

The ground team had taken out the minon groups while the ship had taken out the scout minion group on the speeders. The Sgt was a huge threat the attack an exposed PC. The party's force user was dueling the Inquisitor inside the building. So the ship swung around and made a pass at the building targeting the Heavy gun emplacement.

I think the attack failed but generated a lot of advantage, so the gunner on the ship wanted to use the advantage to collapse the roof of the building. This would eliminate the threat of the Sgt shooting the PC on its turn and just be cinematic. When I said the character's inside had to make coordination checks to avoid being damaged by falling debris, the players then wanted to tack on how the shots created a hole in the roof giving the PC in the building an advantage in avoiding the debris.

The PC made his check but the Inquisitor failed; resulting in the Inquisitor being knocked prone and suffering wounds and strain. This pretty much tipped the battle from a close fight to a pretty one-sided rout. Granted the action was very Star Wars but it sort of felt out of balance for a shot that had failed.

1) If you all had fun, that's what matters most.

2) 5 Advantage from a shipboard gunnery check seems appropriate to collapse a roof.

3) Good call on the Coordination checks. That's probably what I would have done, too.

1) If you all had fun, that's what matters most.

2) 5 Advantage from a shipboard gunnery check seems appropriate to collapse a roof.

3) Good call on the Coordination checks. That's probably what I would have done, too.

True but be careful. When you make calls like this that have such a dramatic effect you set a precedent and it may come back to bite you later if your Players begin to expect a similar level of effect every time they fail but roll a bunch of Advantages.

To me 4 or more advantages has the same power as one triumph.

I wouldn't go for that, it's too easy. And once you're rolling 3 yellows, Triumphs aren't exactly rare. Triumphs should be special, not emulated by something else.

Honestly, the only times I've had a problem spending Advantages on a roll was when, in retrospect, I realized I shouldn't have asked the players for a roll in the first place. For the rest, there's always a way to break down a collection of advantages. But then, I'm often using Strain as a currency on Threat, so Advantages to recover Strain are always welcome.

To me 4 or more advantages has the same power as one triumph.

Agreed. I'd give them the option to use up all Advantage at 4 or over as a single Triumph or break it down into smaller usable units.

Nooooooooooo.........!!!!!!!!

Seriously though, although it would seem that having so many Advantages should in essence be the same as a Triumph it shouldn't be played as such. Triumphs are only available on Yellow Dice, which require that you are Trained in a Skill or you blow a Destiny Point and so a PC should never get the equivalent of a Triumph unless they actually roll one. They're supposed to be special'er so even though there are options that a PC can spend a Triumph in exchange for a number of Advantages it shouldn't work the other way around.

Narrative-wise the triumph is of course a more special scene and it already do a good job at inspiring the players. Mechanical-wise i don't see a problem in using 4 advantages as a triumph (or minor-triumph maybe). I mean, with 4 advantages you can shoot the weapon out of a enemy hands by me.

1) If you all had fun, that's what matters most.

2) 5 Advantage from a shipboard gunnery check seems appropriate to collapse a roof.

3) Good call on the Coordination checks. That's probably what I would have done, too.

True but be careful. When you make calls like this that have such a dramatic effect you set a precedent and it may come back to bite you later if your Players begin to expect a similar level of effect every time they fail but roll a bunch of Advantages.

It's all situational though. My points 2) and 3) are the balancing factors. Precedents are only applicable when your circumstances are sufficiently similar.