The one thing I don't see people doing on here, but that we do in our games, is apply penalties/bonuses based on the situation. Sure, you may be rolling your super-skilled up Vigilance, but you were surprised (you failed the perception check, 1 black on init), it was dark (1 black), they set up a professional ambush (turn a black to Red). If you don't get at least one net success, you don't act this turn at ALL. You are glad you improved your Vigilance skill because it gives you a reasonable chance of acting effectively, but there is never a time where you WANT to be surprised at the start of combat.

Which is essentially the inverse of the method I suggested, which given that it's a simple opposed check, is essentially identical. (bonuses from ambushing/situations, rather than penalties from being ambushed/situations). There's also nothing which states failing initiative results in no action, otherwise all those 1 & 2 willpower characters with no vigilance are going to be missing a lot of first turns, even without a setback or upgrade. (also upgrading difficulty doesn't change blacks to red, it would add a purple)

Absolutely. Different methods of getting to the same place, in the end. The no actions thing is something we do just because it makes an actual ambush more like an ambush and less like two groups coming upon one another unexpectedly. It also makes Vigilance (and Willpower) a more important stat for people who expect to be in combat situations, rather than just maxing out Agility at the expense of everything else.

I don't get what the big deal is about not having cool or vigilance in one spec or another. Assuming that you go from a skill of 0 to a skill of 5, we're only talking about 25 points (75 points in class, 100 out of class). That's one or two games worth of experience - three if the GM is stingy with the points.

Sure, if you're buying a lot of skills outside your spec, it can get pricy and you might want to diversify your career first, but for just one skill? That's nothing! If you want cool, buy cool - problem solved!

The one thing I don't see people doing on here, but that we do in our games, is apply penalties/bonuses based on the situation. Sure, you may be rolling your super-skilled up Vigilance, but you were surprised (you failed the perception check, 1 black on init), it was dark (1 black), they set up a professional ambush (turn a black to Red). If you don't get at least one net success, you don't act this turn at ALL. You are glad you improved your Vigilance skill because it gives you a reasonable chance of acting effectively, but there is never a time where you WANT to be surprised at the start of combat.

FYI it would not be a perception to notice an ambush. It would be a vigilance check vs. the ambusher's stealth. You could probably have that same vigilance check be their initiative too.

Perception of some sort is usually to spot something in particular when we play. The lack of people on the street, the oddly piled trash on the side of the road, etc., rather than a general wariness. Vigilance is already a part of the initiative roll, we usually just leave it there. Different strokes I guess, we tend to assume the guys in our group are always keeping a wary eye out, ambushes are more about whether you see it rather than whether you were looking. With good vigilance you don't "see" the ambush so much as react so efficiently it might as well not have been an ambush.

I play/played with a bunch of military guys. Vigilance (to us) is keeping your weapon clear, your gear in good shape, everything in its place. If you have ever carried, especially concealed, you know the constant push/pull between having your weapon easily accessible vs. moving it just a bit to the side so that the thing will quit digging into your kidneys. Having your webbing real snug vs. easing it up a bit in that one spot where it just isn't comfortable. Putting your weapon where it will quit hitting you in the sack everytime you go over a bump, vs having it in position to bail out in a hurry. All those hundreds of little compromises between function and comfort/ease that everyone makes. The vets know which compromises can be made and which ones can not, and how to get some sort of comfort without sacrificing function. We imagine high Vigilance to represent the preparation and constant attention that lets a person react without stumbling when there isn't enough time to think. It doesn't prevent you from being surprised, it is the muscle memory motions you utilize when surprised that get you through until your brain engages fully.

As I was writing this, I was struck at how different this game can be depending on the group playing. I wonder what "take" others have on the game.

Perception of some sort is usually to spot something in particular when we play. The lack of people on the street, the oddly piled trash on the side of the road, etc., rather than a general wariness. Vigilance is already a part of the initiative roll, we usually just leave it there. Different strokes I guess, we tend to assume the guys in our group are always keeping a wary eye out, ambushes are more about whether you see it rather than whether you were looking. With good vigilance you don't "see" the ambush so much as react so efficiently it might as well not have been an ambush.

I play/played with a bunch of military guys. Vigilance (to us) is keeping your weapon clear, your gear in good shape, everything in its place. If you have ever carried, especially concealed, you know the constant push/pull between having your weapon easily accessible vs. moving it just a bit to the side so that the thing will quit digging into your kidneys. Having your webbing real snug vs. easing it up a bit in that one spot where it just isn't comfortable. Putting your weapon where it will quit hitting you in the sack everytime you go over a bump, vs having it in position to bail out in a hurry. All those hundreds of little compromises between function and comfort/ease that everyone makes. The vets know which compromises can be made and which ones can not, and how to get some sort of comfort without sacrificing function. We imagine high Vigilance to represent the preparation and constant attention that lets a person react without stumbling when there isn't enough time to think. It doesn't prevent you from being surprised, it is the muscle memory motions you utilize when surprised that get you through until your brain engages fully.

As I was writing this, I was struck at how different this game can be depending on the group playing. I wonder what "take" others have on the game.

Suppose the following happens:

Two PCs meet up in a bar/cantina/whatever and do their own thing (sit down, get a drink, etc.) but what they don't yet know is that a group of Imperial Agents are approaching to arrest them.

GM calls for a Perception check. One PC succeeds, the other fails.

What does the GM call for?

1) Does the PC who failed the Perception check roll Vigilance while the successful PC rolls Cool? (Because he's seen the approaching patrol and knows to expect trouble.)

or

2) Both PCs roll Vigilance regardless, because it's still technically an unexpected encounter? (And the PC who passed the Perception check just gets to draw their blaster early or whatever as a bonus for noticing the patrol.)

In that scenario the GM should forgo the Perception check and go straight to rolling on Vigilance, because basically that is what is used to perceive the danger and get ready for conflict.

GM calls for a Perception check. One PC succeeds, the other fails.

What does the GM call for?

If the GM calls for a Perception check, it's because the Imperials are waiting to spring the ambush, but aren't going to spring it yet. Successful Perception means the PC can take action, like subtly alerting his friend, or moving to a better location, maybe using Deception to pretend he doesn't know. They will still roll Vigilance when the ambush is triggered because they don't know when it will come...unless the Deception roll succeeds, and they decide to turn the tables and start shooting, then it's the PCs who roll Cool and the Imperials who roll Vigilance.

Agree with DanteRotterdam, if you plan to have the Imperials jump the PCs immediately, skip the Perception and go straight to Vigilance.

BTW, and this is just MHO, but I wouldn't let every PC roll Perception, you're basically guaranteeing that the Imperials will be spotted.

Did the players say "I want to look around to see if anyone in here is threatening or sinister?"

In cases where the players themselves don't know that there's danger, as GM I would call for a Vigilance check rather than a Perception check. I use Vigilance as a 'passive' thing that covers being wary of danger, and Perception as an 'active' thing that means "I'm looking out for something specific."

But I agree with DanteRotterdam, that if it's just "roll a check to see if you spot somebody that's about to attack you right now", I'd say that's just an Initiative check, so I'd use Vigilance. If you get a good result on your check, you spotted the attacker and your party might get to move before they do. If not, the attacker probably gets to move first.

In cases where the players themselves don't know that there's danger, as GM I would call for a Vigilance check rather than a Perception check. I use Vigilance as a 'passive' thing that covers being wary of danger, and Perception as an 'active' thing that means "I'm looking out for something specific."

I keep forgetting that...

Suppose the following happens:

Two PCs meet up in a bar/cantina/whatever and do their own thing (sit down, get a drink, etc.) but what they don't yet know is that a group of Imperial Agents are approaching to arrest them.

GM calls for a Perception check. One PC succeeds, the other fails.

What does the GM call for?

1) Does the PC who failed the Perception check roll Vigilance while the successful PC rolls Cool? (Because he's seen the approaching patrol and knows to expect trouble.)

or

2) Both PCs roll Vigilance regardless, because it's still technically an unexpected encounter? (And the PC who passed the Perception check just gets to draw their blaster early or whatever as a bonus for noticing the patrol.)

That is exactly what we are doing.

GM wise you could say to the PC who failed his check "You miss the subtle shift in the crowd as conversations stop and nearby tables all look your way. When the agents attack you get one black die on your Vigilance check because you were completely surprised."

Alternately you say to the PC who made the check "You notice nearby conversations stopping and eyes all turning towards your table. The agents attack as you turn to see what has captured all the attention. Roll Vigilance for initiative."

Regardless, different GM's/groups different ways of going about it. If you would rather not make a perception check (and we don't always do so, we only do it if there is something to notice) it really doesn't alter the heart of what I was saying. When rolling initiative whether using Cool or Vigilance it helps to add modifiers based on the situation. Not only does that make the results more believable, it goes a long way towards fixing the "I WANT to be surprised" issue.

I woudn't have called for a Perception check at all, but then this goes back to the old Perception vs. Vigilance thread we had a while ago. I've argued (although it is very ambiguous, and FFG does both in their publications) that one should only be rolling perception when one is actively looking at something. In this case, if they're just sitting around having a drink with no reason to be actively watching the door for Imperial Agents, I would say spotting that someone just came through the door is a vigilance check. It's then easy enough to use this to modify the initiative check, or substitute it for the initiative check after the first suprise moment.

I interpret (and YMMV) "expecting combat" to mean you know specificly when it's gong to commence ("As soon as we walk through that door") and have sufficent time to plan and mentaly prepair for it, at least a couple of minutes.

To me, indefinate combat ("I'm could be attacked sometime today") is the defintiion of vigilance - it takes great willpower to be on your guard the whole day just incase combt starts.

Different strokes and all that. The problem we have with what you are saying is that first, nobody is ever on guard all the time. Being ready is about taking care of things before hand, and the most vigilant blind man in the world still won't see anything. People who try to be "on" all the time burn out faster and wind up being slower when the time comes than the guy who knows how to prepare. It isn't about willpower or endurance, it's a learned skill that lets you know what to ignore as much as it teaches you what to pay attention to. The second more nuts and bolts issue is that Vigilance becomes the end all be all of skills. It helps you see anything as long as you aren't looking for it, lets you go first as long as you are surprised, pretty much just gives you a giant "I win but only if I'm not trying" skill. Why bother with perception at all if you can just never look for anything intentionally and use your min/max vigilance skill? We don't always use perception, but it's there if there is something in particular to notice.

For example, no perception check. Four Stormtroopers are having a command meeting. The first set his blaster down when he came in, because the sling catches on the arm of his chair. The second set it beside his chair for the same reason. The third kept his with him, but slung it on his back so it would quit bumping the map when he leans over. The fourth kept his front slung. When the rebels came in, the first had to look around and find his blaster before he could pick it up (Vigilance 1). The second knew where it was, but had to look down at it as he picked it up so he wouldn't drop it (Vigilance 2). The third didn't have to look, but it took some time to swing the blaster around (Vigilance 3). The fourth has no conscious recollection of bringing his blaster up, and was shooting before the Rebels could assess the room (Vigilance 4).

We could have tried to explain every detail of the 4 Stormtroopers, but there is already a perfectly good mechanic in Vigilance to represent their relative readiness. The GM only has to say there are 4 STs in the room, armed with blasters, and let their relative Vigilance scores sort out the details of who had what ready and how. If the four of them had been expecting the fight, they would all have had their weapons front slung and Vigilance wouldn't have been an issue.

Your assuming that the information provided would the the same for identical success/advantages, and this isn't the case. Your never going to get as much information from a quick glance as you are from actively looking at or for something. But as you extensively pointed out in your post, the ability to determine hidden details by ear or eye doesn't matter if your brain just discards the information as not making sense. The former is perception, the latter is vigilance. We actually instituted this particular definition in our group because it prevented Perception from being the uber-skill, which it was acting as prior. I never said Vigilance replaces Perception for all uses, I said that particular case was one I'd rule as vigilance.

Which comes back to the fact that initiative doesn't seem to be as big of a deal (at least in ground combat) as most people make it out to be. And without this, there really was not anything else for vigilance to be used for. But I digress from the original - Cool v. Vigilance.

I'm not sure exactly where you were going with that long explanation/description of stormtroopers, but I agree that if they're having a meeting, initiative would be handled by Vigilance. If they were alerted that some time in the near future rebels were going to burst through that door, and need to be gunned down, I'd be cool. or what ever ambush rules your particular group might use.

Seems at this point you are more interested in arguing a point (not sure what or why) rather than discussing different ways of going about playing the game. Obviously, we all do our own thing, enjoy what you do. Ours works for us.

In that scenario the GM should forgo the Perception check and go straight to rolling on Vigilance, because basically that is what is used to perceive the danger and get ready for conflict.

Okay, thanks. Hadn't considered that.

If the GM calls for a Perception check, it's because the Imperials are waiting to spring the ambush, but aren't going to spring it yet. Successful Perception means the PC can take action, like subtly alerting his friend, or moving to a better location, maybe using Deception to pretend he doesn't know.

Agree with DanteRotterdam, if you plan to have the Imperials jump the PCs immediately, skip the Perception and go straight to Vigilance.

Agreed. But I think also in this case, a Perception roll can be justified because if the Imperial Agents are hiding/ambushing/waiting for reinforcements, this could then be an opposed check (Stealth vs Perception) instead, correct?

GM wise you could say to the PC who failed his check "You miss the subtle shift in the crowd as conversations stop and nearby tables all look your way. When the agents attack you get one black die on your Vigilance check because you were completely surprised."

Alternately you say to the PC who made the check "You notice nearby conversations stopping and eyes all turning towards your table. The agents attack as you turn to see what has captured all the attention. Roll Vigilance for initiative."

This is basically what my intention was behind the Perception check. As the PCs are doing their own thing/introducing themselves, I wanted to give them a chance to notice that the ambiance of the room had changed from one of blissful ignorance/nothing out of the ordinary to one of suspicion and paranoia (in the vein of "you notice the cantina staff have disappeared/patrons stop talking and eye you suspiciously/traffic outside the venue stops" to suggest a recently erected blockade etc.)

Basically, it gives them a chance to act before they know for certain they are under attack.

If the GM calls for a Perception check, it's because the Imperials are waiting to spring the ambush, but aren't going to spring it yet. Successful Perception means the PC can take action, like subtly alerting his friend, or moving to a better location, maybe using Deception to pretend he doesn't know.

Agree with DanteRotterdam, if you plan to have the Imperials jump the PCs immediately, skip the Perception and go straight to Vigilance.

Perception check would be for actively searching. Vigilance if the pcs just walk into the cantina and do not say they check the place out.

The problem we have with what you are saying is that first, nobody is ever on guard all the time. Being ready is about taking care of things before hand, and the most vigilant blind man in the world still won't see anything.

Isn't this why you roll dice to determine things? To see whether people are vigilant enough to notice things?

The problem we have with what you are saying is that first, nobody is ever on guard all the time.

Bad Vigilance roll = You weren't on guard this time. Good = You were. The roll itself is seeing if you were vigilant enough this time or not.

Edit: And NOW I noticed Dante's post saying the same thing.

And KO I don't think anyone is aruging with you, just debating different sides of this discussion.

For a long time I've felt that the whole reason for Cool is to provide a "Han Solo" response to pressure, versus Obi-Wan's "Discipline" response to pressure. It's basically the same thing (a degree of mental fortitude in bad situations) with a slightly different spin.

If you're a card shark and not giving any tells, that's as much an exertion of Discipline as it is Cool. If your trained group is executing an ambush, that's as much mental discipline achieved through training as it is just generally being good under pressure. Same as for doctors - I see Doctor as having Cool to express keeping your head in high-pressure medical situations...but that is just as much exemplified by Discipline achieved through training and repetition of that situation to me. I really don't feel like this is enough of a differentiation to justify a whole other skill.

The problem we have with what you are saying is that first, nobody is ever on guard all the time.

Bad Vigilance roll = You weren't on guard this time. Good = You were. The roll itself is seeing if you were vigilant enough this time or not.

Edit: And NOW I noticed Dante's post saying the same thing.

And KO I don't think anyone is aruging with you, just debating different sides of this discussion.

I suppose that was the difference. I wasn't debating anything, I was just explaining what we do and why. There isn't a "correct" way, it's an RPG after all. We like to have more differentiation than just Vigilance. Two guys with equal vigilance are not equally perceptive, and being vigilant doesn't mean you spot everything. I was just trying to illustrate two examples, one where we used perception+vigilance and another where we didn't, in order to illustrate our train of thought. Somehow, that seemed to turn into a "debate", which wasn't my intention at all.

Regardless, no offense taken I just am not looking to have a "debate". I was just explaining an alternative for those who find vigilance to be too much of a catch all skill. We like to separate the skill for being prepared/on guard and the skill for being very perceptive, rather than using a single skill for both. YMMV.

So, do you use perception when aiming as well?

So, do you use perception when aiming as well?

You ask that facetiously, but I keep thinking about using a few FATE concepts with FFG. Specifically their Assisted / Restricted rolls. I can't remember the exact terms but if another skill that the character possesses is higher than the required skill (and makes sense to modify the check) then they get a bonus of +1, if the skill is lower they get a -1.

The last one is "Limited By" and limits the active skill rating by the level of the other skill.

Anyway, If you used this concept I could see giving an extra blue die if the perception skill is higher than the ranged skill for long shots and sniping. A total aside I know, but it was the first thing that occurred to me when you asked that.

I was merely trying to show you how weird it would be in a different situation. I was not trying to be mean spirirted or rude.

Apparently it worked, but I was still considered rude anyway...

I appologize for that.