And then once more you make talents and gear that upgrade a foes difficulty or give setback to a foe that the player has as useless. As for the gear/talents the npc has that upgrade their ability or downgrades difficulty or adds boost, removing these doesn't just slightly tilt things in the PC's favor it drastically does so, especially at later sessions once the PC's have amassed a decent amount of exp. It doesn't take away from the player (at least I don't feel nor have my players voiced such) to not roll everything, far from it, it sometimes can add an element of suspense and avoids a lot of out of character knowledge from unconsciously guiding the actions of a player when they just see a roll (such as for stealth) but don't know what it's for. This again is RAW, I am all for you running your table however you feel best but we should clarify houserules as houserules.

What are these talents that effect NPC dice pools? I can only think of talents that effect PC dice pools off hand.

Congenial, Defensive Slicing, Intimidating, Indistinguishable, Nobody's Fool, and Unrelenting Skeptic. There might be more in Force and Destiny, but I don't know. Most the items/mods that help you conceal equipment also affect the opponents pool rather than the player's.

Masque pretty much answered it for me. Another big difference between just making those difficulty upgrades for opponents become ability upgrades for players beyond sheer chance is despair vs triumph which drastically alter how the narrative options play out.

Armour wise i tend to default to Catch Vest which is soak 1 normally but becomes soak 2 when hit with energy based weapons

Enemies should not be rolling stealth. Players should be rolling perception or vigilance with the difficulty being the enemies skill in stealth.

I disagree with this part of your post. It's not supported by the raw and makes a lot of talents and gear worthless. Any talents or gear the enemy has that remove setback dice become worthless, any talent or gear that grants enemies boost dice or ability upgrades becomes worthless, and any talents or gear the players have that add setback dice to the enemie, or upgrade the enemies difficulty become worthless, etc.

Taking a hard line either way is anti-RAW, since either skill can oppose the other. It is also antithetical to the game design, which takes a very loose and adaptation-friendly approach to skill checks.

I suppose the trick is knowing when to have NPCs roll, and when not to have them roll. As a rule of thumb, I agree with Jay Little, and try to have my PCs roll for most things outside of combat and the like.

1) it sets the players up for success, since on average the dice slightly favor the ability & proficiency dice for success over failure against an equal number of difficulty & challenge dice.

2) it gives the players ownership of the skill check and generates a certain amount of automatic buy-in to what's happening in the scene. Players will feel less ripped-off by a disadvantageous roll if they are the ones that are rolling.

I like to give my players a choice in many circumstances. They can roll, or allow their enemies to roll. Results can be narrated in several ways, but allowing your players to roll can really get them involved more in the storytelling and immerse them further in the narrative. And that's a good thing, IMO.

Enemies should not be rolling stealth. Players should be rolling perception or vigilance with the difficulty being the enemies skill in stealth.

I disagree with this part of your post. It's not supported by the raw and makes a lot of talents and gear worthless. Any talents or gear the enemy has that remove setback dice become worthless, any talent or gear that grants enemies boost dice or ability upgrades becomes worthless, and any talents or gear the players have that add setback dice to the enemie, or upgrade the enemies difficulty become worthless, etc.

Taking a hard line either way is anti-RAW, since either skill can oppose the other. It is also antithetical to the game design, which takes a very loose and adaptation-friendly approach to skill checks.

I suppose the trick is knowing when to have NPCs roll, and when not to have them roll. As a rule of thumb, I agree with Jay Little, and try to have my PCs roll for most things outside of combat and the like.

1) it sets the players up for success, since on average the dice slightly favor the ability & proficiency dice for success over failure against an equal number of difficulty & challenge dice.

2) it gives the players ownership of the skill check and generates a certain amount of automatic buy-in to what's happening in the scene. Players will feel less ripped-off by a disadvantageous roll if they are the ones that are rolling.

I like to give my players a choice in many circumstances. They can roll, or allow their enemies to roll. Results can be narrated in several ways, but allowing your players to roll can really get them involved more in the storytelling and immerse them further in the narrative. And that's a good thing, IMO.

As for mixing up when a player rolls over when an NPC rolls is something I'm more in favor of than the alternative of just never having an npc roll out of combat I think consistency is important specifically so a player doesn't feel like you're stacking the deck against them in certain situations. Ie if you first let the player roll their stealth as they're hiding behind boxes from the guards looking for them then later let the guards roll they might feel you're changing the rules to favor catching them since now the odds have changed when instead if you set up a consistant standard for who rolls when, then that bit of gm alteration based on whether they want the PC's to succeed or not dissipates.

Enemies should not be rolling stealth. Players should be rolling perception or vigilance with the difficulty being the enemies skill in stealth.

I disagree with this part of your post. It's not supported by the raw and makes a lot of talents and gear worthless. Any talents or gear the enemy has that remove setback dice become worthless, any talent or gear that grants enemies boost dice or ability upgrades becomes worthless, and any talents or gear the players have that add setback dice to the enemie, or upgrade the enemies difficulty become worthless, etc.

Taking a hard line either way is anti-RAW, since either skill can oppose the other. It is also antithetical to the game design, which takes a very loose and adaptation-friendly approach to skill checks.

I suppose the trick is knowing when to have NPCs roll, and when not to have them roll. As a rule of thumb, I agree with Jay Little, and try to have my PCs roll for most things outside of combat and the like.

1) it sets the players up for success, since on average the dice slightly favor the ability & proficiency dice for success over failure against an equal number of difficulty & challenge dice.

2) it gives the players ownership of the skill check and generates a certain amount of automatic buy-in to what's happening in the scene. Players will feel less ripped-off by a disadvantageous roll if they are the ones that are rolling.

I like to give my players a choice in many circumstances. They can roll, or allow their enemies to roll. Results can be narrated in several ways, but allowing your players to roll can really get them involved more in the storytelling and immerse them further in the narrative. And that's a good thing, IMO.

My problem stems again more in the sheer fact that not letting opponents roll outside of combat makes a lot of gear and talents useless for both sides. Not only that as a GM and a player I don't always want players to be set up for success, since often I feel some of the most compelling events in a story and roleplaying come from failure, not success. Not that players really need help in succeeding anyways as it's pretty easy for players to stack their character where they're going to succeed most things without that extra bump, especially if they're assisting each other in some way.

As for mixing up when a player rolls over when an NPC rolls is something I'm more in favor of than the alternative of just never having an npc roll out of combat I think consistency is important specifically so a player doesn't feel like you're stacking the deck against them in certain situations. Ie if you first let the player roll their stealth as they're hiding behind boxes from the guards looking for them then later let the guards roll they might feel you're changing the rules to favor catching them since now the odds have changed when instead if you set up a consistant standard for who rolls when, then that bit of gm alteration based on whether they want the PC's to succeed or not dissipates.

No it does not. You just apply the gear and talents slightly different. A talent that gives boost die to stealth gives setback die to vigilance checks. Gear that upgrade stealth checks upgrades the difficulty.

Enemies should not be rolling stealth. Players should be rolling perception or vigilance with the difficulty being the enemies skill in stealth.

I disagree with this part of your post. It's not supported by the raw and makes a lot of talents and gear worthless. Any talents or gear the enemy has that remove setback dice become worthless, any talent or gear that grants enemies boost dice or ability upgrades becomes worthless, and any talents or gear the players have that add setback dice to the enemie, or upgrade the enemies difficulty become worthless, etc.

Taking a hard line either way is anti-RAW, since either skill can oppose the other. It is also antithetical to the game design, which takes a very loose and adaptation-friendly approach to skill checks.

I suppose the trick is knowing when to have NPCs roll, and when not to have them roll. As a rule of thumb, I agree with Jay Little, and try to have my PCs roll for most things outside of combat and the like.

1) it sets the players up for success, since on average the dice slightly favor the ability & proficiency dice for success over failure against an equal number of difficulty & challenge dice.

2) it gives the players ownership of the skill check and generates a certain amount of automatic buy-in to what's happening in the scene. Players will feel less ripped-off by a disadvantageous roll if they are the ones that are rolling.

I like to give my players a choice in many circumstances. They can roll, or allow their enemies to roll. Results can be narrated in several ways, but allowing your players to roll can really get them involved more in the storytelling and immerse them further in the narrative. And that's a good thing, IMO.

My problem stems again more in the sheer fact that not letting opponents roll outside of combat makes a lot of gear and talents useless for both sides. Not only that as a GM and a player I don't always want players to be set up for success, since often I feel some of the most compelling events in a story and roleplaying come from failure, not success. Not that players really need help in succeeding anyways as it's pretty easy for players to stack their character where they're going to succeed most things without that extra bump, especially if they're assisting each other in some way.

As for mixing up when a player rolls over when an NPC rolls is something I'm more in favor of than the alternative of just never having an npc roll out of combat I think consistency is important specifically so a player doesn't feel like you're stacking the deck against them in certain situations. Ie if you first let the player roll their stealth as they're hiding behind boxes from the guards looking for them then later let the guards roll they might feel you're changing the rules to favor catching them since now the odds have changed when instead if you set up a consistant standard for who rolls when, then that bit of gm alteration based on whether they want the PC's to succeed or not dissipates.

No it does not. You just apply the gear and talents slightly different. A talent that gives boost die to stealth gives setback die to vigilance checks. Gear that upgrade stealth checks upgrades the difficulty.

and what should someone do with talents that remove setback dice. The first thought answer is to remove boost dice but I have a knee jerk "no" reaction to that. Another option would be to add setback dice which seems more emotionaly palatable but that makes the talent a lot stronger and upsets the game balance.

Maybe it's because my players haven't worked into any Talents or gear that does this, but I haven't come across this yet. So far, 100% of the time there is no question that the PC can do the rolls. I suppose if it comes up I'll deal with it then, and that 100 will drop to 99%. IOW, it's not exactly a compelling reason to change how I do it.

and what should someone do with talents that remove setback dice. The first thought answer is to remove boost dice but I have a knee jerk "no" reaction to that. Another option would be to add setback dice which seems more emotionaly palatable but that makes the talent a lot stronger and upsets the game balance.

Maybe it's because my players haven't worked into any Talents or gear that does this, but I haven't come across this yet. So far, 100% of the time there is no question that the PC can do the rolls. I suppose if it comes up I'll deal with it then, and that 100 will drop to 99%. IOW, it's not exactly a compelling reason to change how I do it.

and what should someone do with talents that remove setback dice. The first thought answer is to remove boost dice but I have a knee jerk "no" reaction to that. Another option would be to add setback dice which seems more emotionaly palatable but that makes the talent a lot stronger and upsets the game balance.

If an NPC has talents that remove setback dice, then their Setback dice wouldn't come into the equation as "inverted" Boost dice for the PC in the first place, so it's not like you're actually removing them.

If a PC has talents that remove setback dice, then the NPC's Boost dice that you invert to Setbacks for the PC get removed. No issues there. Gives your PC a chance to use that talent. It's all gravy.

Enemies should not be rolling stealth. Players should be rolling perception or vigilance with the difficulty being the enemies skill in stealth.

I disagree with this part of your post. It's not supported by the raw and makes a lot of talents and gear worthless. Any talents or gear the enemy has that remove setback dice become worthless, any talent or gear that grants enemies boost dice or ability upgrades becomes worthless, and any talents or gear the players have that add setback dice to the enemie, or upgrade the enemies difficulty become worthless, etc.

Taking a hard line either way is anti-RAW, since either skill can oppose the other. It is also antithetical to the game design, which takes a very loose and adaptation-friendly approach to skill checks.

I suppose the trick is knowing when to have NPCs roll, and when not to have them roll. As a rule of thumb, I agree with Jay Little, and try to have my PCs roll for most things outside of combat and the like.

1) it sets the players up for success, since on average the dice slightly favor the ability & proficiency dice for success over failure against an equal number of difficulty & challenge dice.

2) it gives the players ownership of the skill check and generates a certain amount of automatic buy-in to what's happening in the scene. Players will feel less ripped-off by a disadvantageous roll if they are the ones that are rolling.

I like to give my players a choice in many circumstances. They can roll, or allow their enemies to roll. Results can be narrated in several ways, but allowing your players to roll can really get them involved more in the storytelling and immerse them further in the narrative. And that's a good thing, IMO.

My problem stems again more in the sheer fact that not letting opponents roll outside of combat makes a lot of gear and talents useless for both sides. Not only that as a GM and a player I don't always want players to be set up for success, since often I feel some of the most compelling events in a story and roleplaying come from failure, not success. Not that players really need help in succeeding anyways as it's pretty easy for players to stack their character where they're going to succeed most things without that extra bump, especially if they're assisting each other in some way.

As for mixing up when a player rolls over when an NPC rolls is something I'm more in favor of than the alternative of just never having an npc roll out of combat I think consistency is important specifically so a player doesn't feel like you're stacking the deck against them in certain situations. Ie if you first let the player roll their stealth as they're hiding behind boxes from the guards looking for them then later let the guards roll they might feel you're changing the rules to favor catching them since now the odds have changed when instead if you set up a consistant standard for who rolls when, then that bit of gm alteration based on whether they want the PC's to succeed or not dissipates.

No it does not. You just apply the gear and talents slightly different. A talent that gives boost die to stealth gives setback die to vigilance checks. Gear that upgrade stealth checks upgrades the difficulty.

Ok again you're house-ruling and altering the odds significantly as they build more talents and gear that you have to start converting then. Also you wind up eliminating the enemies ability to generate triumph and despair, which can have large effects on the narritive. Not so much for mooks perhaps but certainly for nemesis's.

I mean I get it's possible to reverse engineer everything and if that works at your table that's fine, I just don't see the appeal in tilting the odds massively in the players favor on EVERY roll. I understand a player wanting to "own" their actions, but staying crouched behind a box while a enemy looks for you or resisting the charm of a seductive stranger, etc (in other words rolling for passively just being in the scene instead of acting) just doesn't seem to really add that much by having the player roll in my experience. I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on that.

Although I do agree with the earlier sentiment that all rolls should be out in the open, I've had my players chime in suggestions for how to spend an enemies threat or despair before, so it's not as if they're missing out on helping tell the story if they're not the ones rolling (just like they help give suggestions to each other when they roll).

Enemies should not be rolling stealth. Players should be rolling perception or vigilance with the difficulty being the enemies skill in stealth.

I disagree with this part of your post. It's not supported by the raw and makes a lot of talents and gear worthless. Any talents or gear the enemy has that remove setback dice become worthless, any talent or gear that grants enemies boost dice or ability upgrades becomes worthless, and any talents or gear the players have that add setback dice to the enemie, or upgrade the enemies difficulty become worthless, etc.

Taking a hard line either way is anti-RAW, since either skill can oppose the other. It is also antithetical to the game design, which takes a very loose and adaptation-friendly approach to skill checks.

I suppose the trick is knowing when to have NPCs roll, and when not to have them roll. As a rule of thumb, I agree with Jay Little, and try to have my PCs roll for most things outside of combat and the like.

1) it sets the players up for success, since on average the dice slightly favor the ability & proficiency dice for success over failure against an equal number of difficulty & challenge dice.

2) it gives the players ownership of the skill check and generates a certain amount of automatic buy-in to what's happening in the scene. Players will feel less ripped-off by a disadvantageous roll if they are the ones that are rolling.

I like to give my players a choice in many circumstances. They can roll, or allow their enemies to roll. Results can be narrated in several ways, but allowing your players to roll can really get them involved more in the storytelling and immerse them further in the narrative. And that's a good thing, IMO.

My problem stems again more in the sheer fact that not letting opponents roll outside of combat makes a lot of gear and talents useless for both sides. Not only that as a GM and a player I don't always want players to be set up for success, since often I feel some of the most compelling events in a story and roleplaying come from failure, not success. Not that players really need help in succeeding anyways as it's pretty easy for players to stack their character where they're going to succeed most things without that extra bump, especially if they're assisting each other in some way.

As for mixing up when a player rolls over when an NPC rolls is something I'm more in favor of than the alternative of just never having an npc roll out of combat I think consistency is important specifically so a player doesn't feel like you're stacking the deck against them in certain situations. Ie if you first let the player roll their stealth as they're hiding behind boxes from the guards looking for them then later let the guards roll they might feel you're changing the rules to favor catching them since now the odds have changed when instead if you set up a consistant standard for who rolls when, then that bit of gm alteration based on whether they want the PC's to succeed or not dissipates.

No it does not. You just apply the gear and talents slightly different. A talent that gives boost die to stealth gives setback die to vigilance checks. Gear that upgrade stealth checks upgrades the difficulty.

Ok again you're house-ruling and altering the odds significantly as they build more talents and gear that you have to start converting then. Also you wind up eliminating the enemies ability to generate triumph and despair, which can have large effects on the narritive. Not so much for mooks perhaps but certainly for nemesis's.

I mean I get it's possible to reverse engineer everything and if that works at your table that's fine, I just don't see the appeal in tilting the odds massively in the players favor on EVERY roll. I understand a player wanting to "own" their actions, but staying crouched behind a box while a enemy looks for you or resisting the charm of a seductive stranger, etc (in other words rolling for passively just being in the scene instead of acting) just doesn't seem to really add that much by having the player roll in my experience. I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on that.

Although I do agree with the earlier sentiment that all rolls should be out in the open, I've had my players chime in suggestions for how to spend an enemies threat or despair before, so it's not as if they're missing out on helping tell the story if they're not the ones rolling (just like they help give suggestions to each other when they roll).

Actually according to Jay Little no I am not. Since it was his idea on a lot of things. That is where I got the idea. He does it that way because when the Players picks up the dice they tend to except the results of their rolls better than if the GM rolls behind a screen and then ambushes the players. Instead he has the player make a vigilance check and adjusts the difficulty based on the ambushing characters stats, skills, and equipment. Oh and he created the die mechanic soooo I am gonna go with not a house rule. Just a method of doing things. But this system is flexible like that.

Setback dice have nothing to do with how difficult the task is. They represent less than optimal circumstances for a skill check.

For opposed rolls, that means you decide who is the active party first and only after that you decide if there is a reason for a setback die. That means only one side is affected by setback dice (or boost dice, for that matter.)

Having played in a game run by Jay Little (as well as Sam Stewart and Andy Fischer), Daeglan's a little off the mark.

What they do is they make all their NPC rolls in the open, with the GM screen on hand simply as a reference resource if necessary. They still had NPCs make skill checks as necessary, but the players get to see the end result directly rather than the GM simply rolling behind a screen and then announcing the result.

I believe that Jay has said that it is possible to have the players make all the rolls, but added that doing so skews the odds of success in their favor as the dice tend to favor the active party, as the positive dice are weighed more towards providing success/advantage than the negative dice are to countering them on a one-to-one basis. It'd also be fairly simple matter of any effect that would add positive dice to an NPC's check would be flipped to negative dice on the PC's part, and that NPC talents that would remove setback dice on opposed checks would simply add those setback dice to the PC's dice pool.

Yeah, for any willing to listen, episode 6 of the Order 66 Podcast ("Social Engineering") is where Jay Little goes into many suggestions for getting the most out of your games.

Suffice to say that, when the players making the rolls, the PCs are the center of attention. And that is something that I think we all want most of the time. So I try to look for any excuse to have my players roll any kind of opposed check, except of course during structured play.

Suffice to say that, when the players making the rolls, the PCs are the center of attention. And that is something that I think we all want most of the time. So I try to look for any excuse to have my players roll any kind of opposed check, except of course during structured play.

I think that's the major element, is the "except during structured play."

During narrative play, it is more interesting for the PCs to be making the rolls, so even if the RAW all but says "the NPC should be rolling the dice for this opposed check," having the player roll instead increases their degree of interest. It's probably also why the run-of-the-mill NPCs (minions and Rivals) rarely have any talents that would remove setback dice to non-combat skills; if they're not the ones making the check, they don't need those talents, to allow that sort of thing without adding unnecessary hurdles for the GM to leap over.