Let me echo the above sentiments about failure with advantages. Generally I adjudicate it such that they don't get the answer to the question they asked, but they get some equally (potentially more) valuable information that is tangentially related. In the example of the ship type, they can't identify it, but they know it's not heavily armed, lightly crewed and very fast. One useful piece of information per advantage (that doesn't answer the question asked).

As for difficulties, Whafrog had the right of it. If they're supposed to succeed, it should be 2 dice smaller than the pool the players are throwing. If it's to be a challenge, 1 die smaller. If it's a toss-up, same size. I suggest discounting setback and boosts from these equations. Those are supposed to add/remove difficulty situationally and the underlying difficulty of the check should be unchanged.

This gets back to my initial guide pertaining to character creation where I very emphatically suggest that players figure out a way to start with a 4 in their primary stat. That way they can handle average checks with some regular expectation of success, even if it's with threat.

Thanks for the feedback, folks! As I said, I think the biggest adjustment for my gang was less the failure and more "Hey, I got to roll a ton of dice and it didn't mean anything!" Still, we're all veterans, so I'll probably let them know that I received a lot of feedback that a lot of folks said, that, yeah, is skews more toward failure... (I feel like d20 games are generally designed to push success about 90% of the time... except combat).

With respect to the pool, I've been thinking about it a bit. Since I'm doing a Firefly campaign, I'm trying to do each session like an episode, with five "acts" (with commercial break!). I think at the end of each act, I'll flip one Destiny point to whatever is the current minority. That will prevent it from locking for more than, say, 90 minutes at a time. If we're at parity (say, two dark, two light, maybe I'll let a player roll to see what we add...).

That will prevent it from locking for more than, say, 90 minutes at a time.

It should never be locked, there should be a constant ebb and flow. I flip with great regularity if I can think of a reason for it, and if the rolls are "of consequence" then there's usually a reason. "That lock looks pretty simple, but it's also electrified. Go ahead and pick it...*flip*" You can even flip to boost NPC opposing dice. A PC might be trying to charm an NPC, and their Cool or Discipline is PP...but this NPC's character is that she likes to be told how gorgeous she is (add boost die), but she just got fired (setback), by a guy who looks just like you (*flip*).

Some players fear the negative more than they appreciate the positive, so at first they were hesitant to use any because then I had one to use for later. I've told my players if they lock me out I'll just flip them all back over and start again, so we've nipped that in the bud.

That will prevent it from locking for more than, say, 90 minutes at a time.

It should never be locked, there should be a constant ebb and flow. I flip with great regularity if I can think of a reason for it, and if the rolls are "of consequence" then there's usually a reason. "That lock looks pretty simple, but it's also electrified. Go ahead and pick it...*flip*" You can even flip to boost NPC opposing dice. A PC might be trying to charm an NPC, and their Cool or Discipline is PP...but this NPC's character is that she likes to be told how gorgeous she is (add boost die), but she just got fired (setback), by a guy who looks just like you (*flip*).

Some players fear the negative more than they appreciate the positive, so at first they were hesitant to use any because then I had one to use for later. I've told my players if they lock me out I'll just flip them all back over and start again, so we've nipped that in the bud.

I also like to flip on easy rolls just to give the point back to the PCs. Adds a bit of danger with the Despair possibility, but doesn't actually effect the likely outcome much.

A plain Failure means they succed but something bad happens, like the alarm is tripped or someone is monitoring the data traffic at the moment they slice into the computers.

A failure with disadvantages means they are immediately discovered somehow. The door they opened has a pair of stormtroopers guarding it on the inside, or the computer they sliced is actively used by someone who traces them to their location.

I agreed with everything until this point. You would have to rephrase the task at hand to make this task not be confusing:

Player: "I try to open the locked door using Mechanics". Rolls a simple Failure.

GM: "It opens!...but the alarm goes off"

Player: "Huh? I failed at my open door task but opened the door? The alarm fails due to the Failures? Isn't that a Threat or Despair thingy?"

I suppose you could make some strange task phrasing with bonus conditions such as, "Opening the locked door without triggering the alarm". But, again, confusing. I could imagine a player arguing that task uses Stealth instead? And what about the "locked" part? Is there thus no way to fail at opening a locked door, ever?

I prefer the basics of my tasks to be pretty plain to all - Unlocking the locked door or not. Advantages/Threats and Triumphs/Despairs are where the added details (and fun) come from:

Plain Failure: It remains locked. Nothing extra good or bad happens.

Failure with Threats or Despairs: Remains locked and.....Alarm goes off....Or you broke your lockpick device...Or....

Failure with Advantages or Triumphs: Remains locked.......But you open up a hidden firing port on the door....

Trying to use that instead of just the plain do or do not approach is something I'm trying to do (but constantly falling back in old habits) when GM'ing EotE.

You are falling back into old habits because that is what makes the most logical sense for the Failures and Successes on these dice.

ETA: IMHO!

Not really.

It only took one instance of "I fail, but i still complete the task?" before the players realized that they will succeed in their task (unless it's a combat task), but the roll indicates how they do it.

"I try to lockpick the door".

Failure: You open the door but the lock is broken and you can't shut the door after you.

And I'm falling into old routines because they are old routines... nothing else.

I very much disliked playing in games where I "couldn't really fail" and the Gm just kind of Hand waved us through the adventure....

I feel cheated of the Game. I feel like the GM's story was more important than What we Did in the game.

I wonder Why we are even Bothering to roll dice at all.

I don't have a Problem if My character fails.

But When The GM has a Problem with my Character Failing.. it is No longer me playing a Game with My friends.. It becomes GM's Story time.

I very much disliked playing in games where I "couldn't really fail" and the Gm just kind of Hand waved us through the adventure....

I feel cheated of the Game. I feel like the GM's story was more important than What we Did in the game.

I wonder Why we are even Bothering to roll dice at all.

I don't have a Problem if My character fails.

But When The GM has a Problem with my Character Failing.. it is No longer me playing a Game with My friends.. It becomes GM's Story time.

There's only one way into the base.

You fail the lockpicking roll spectacularly, now the blast-proof doors are locked forever.

Go home and contemplate what you've done wrong.

Alternatively, a failure means you get the doors open, but the entire base is alerted and you now have to fight your way through or run away.

Pick which one you prefer.

There's only one way into the base.
You fail the lockpicking roll spectacularly, now the blast-proof doors are locked forever.

Go home and contemplate what you've done wrong.


Alternatively, a failure means you get the doors open, but the entire base is alerted and you now have to fight your way through or run away.

Pick which one you prefer.

OR, there doesn't have to be only ONE way into the base. Why design an adventure with only one avenue or prevent your players from being creative?:

There is that secret back door that the captured scout knows about. Intimidation time.

There's also that air duct sticking up out of the ground, concealed by vegetation. Perception time.

Blow the **** door open with the jurry rigged grenade belt. Mechanics time.

Pretend to be Commander Klink on a surprise inspection. Deception time.

Creative players, especially with Destiny points to flip, can lead to near countless ways to get around what seems to be an adventure-ending obstacle. Creative GMs can also ensure the adventure isn't stymied by one failure roll. It doesn't have to be pack up and go home or change the success/failure dice mechanic.

Pick which one you prefer.

There's a difference between failing forward and not failing at all. Failing forward is about having an avenue of advance available to you even though the chosen path is no longer an option. Not failing at all is every path chosen by the players is successful.

In the door example above, failure to open it using Skulduggery could mean that the lock is now jammed and can't be opened from this side. Time to use explosives or find an air vent or bypass the door in some way.

Failure in a charm check could mean that the adversary doesn't -want- to be friends with them, doesn't like them, or the player said something that torqued this particular NPC off. Advantages and narrative triumphs could mean that they inadvertently frightened him by mentioning a phobia, uncovered something they could use to blackmail him, or got a piece of information that allows them to find another NPC who could be even more useful.

The action was a failure, but it still opened up other options. They still can't get through the door, but now they see a window. It'd still take another check to try the other option, but the party now knows it's available.

In my example everything everyone is describing is exactly what I am taking about. There is no need for designing multiple entry points when both the GM and the PCs begin to understand the narrative nature of the dice. In my example a PC could in fact ask with leftover Advantages to do any or all of that, with a complete failure being, oh well, F- it, blow the door.

Designing other avenues of entry or options on the front end is ignoring the narrative nature of the dice imo, in essence you aren't letting the dice do their job for you at the table.

For those that say they need a straight pass/fail result, I think you're stuck in a linear mathematical mind set that these dice do not support. There are few dice rolls on balance that are all bad, the dice are weighted to the positive so someone rolling even GGPP, generally can Aim, or have Assist added, or have B dice from the previous rounds checks, to add to the pool which means there is likely going to be some level of success.

That GGPP dice pool is a basic out the door 1st session dice pool, any harder than that and it's either a GM making checks too hard, or PCs using the wrong character or approach to a situation.

In a scenario where it's just all blank faces or everything cancels, that's where the PCs should simply ask the GM or brainstorm other avenues of entry.

Interpreting the dice so the door lock isn't a plot choke point in no way diminishes the need for rolling dice, it simply doesn't create artificial need for having multiple entry points, as all that really represents is a second chance to roll the dice. Choke points always end up creating plot headaches, and multiple chances to accomplish something, is just rolling the dice until you succeed, which is just really a form of hand waving anyway. Getting the door open and having base security on you right from go is hardly what I would consider success or hand waving.

I get what you're saying, but don't necessarily agree, it depends very much on the situation. I specifically don't agree with this statement:

There is no need for designing multiple entry points when both the GM and the PCs begin to understand the narrative nature of the dice.

This seems to advocate for a firm linearity I don't think is necessary, or even desirable. I might have had a reason to provide additional access points, or the player might inject one of their own for their own reason, and what was going to be a full-on assault becomes a stealth assault. I relish that dynamism. Failure and diversion to a different access point can be as tense and interesting as "you get in but there's a complication". I also think the players will wonder what's up if they always pass the obstacles, just with varying degrees of consequence. They certainly can't do that when shooting at something, so it seems like a disconnect if they can always pick a lock.

The pass/fail is still a valid axis, and I pretty much continue to treat it as such. It's the other axis that adds the flavour and consequences.

If you set up an encounter with multiple paths to success to include the PCs is one thing. If you set up multiple paths to simply avoid pass/fail choke points, that's different. In your answer also, PCs injecting an alternative option could in fact be spurred by the dice, as in there are multiple Advantages, and the PC asks 'is there some way I was able to access the system and find another possibility?'

If you set up an encounter with multiple paths to success to include the PCs is one thing. If you set up multiple paths to simply avoid pass/fail choke points, that's different.

And yet another is that: I actually rarely preplan this kind of thing, unless there is a compelling plot-based reason. Investigation of possible routes comes from pre-scouting or just whatever perception roll is made on arrival. I just don't think making sure they get into the first thing they try is reasonable or desirable.

In your answer also, PCs injecting an alternative option could in fact be spurred by the dice, as in there are multiple Advantages, and the PC asks 'is there some way I was able to access the system and find another possibility?'

That's exactly what happens at my table.

Some related questions:

The core rulebook is great about giving clear direction on how to spend Threat, Advantage, Triumph, and Despair in combat, but what about OUT of combat? How do you apply them to, say, a Perception check or a Knowledge check?

Also, if your roll comes down to a a Triumph and a Failure, I know that the Failure cancels out the Success "part" of the Triumph, but is the remaining part enough to succeed, or does it basically become just an Advantage?

I recommend you either buy or browse one of the written adventures. I have Beyond the Rim, and it has a nice bit in the first Act that you can use as an example of how to spend advantages/triumphs on non-combat checks (Computers, streetwise, knowledge). It gives a nice chart of what the PCs can learn when using those particular skills, from a success, Success with one Advantage, Success with two advantages, or Triumphant Success.

As far as Triumphs go, if the 'success' part is cancelled out, we call that a 'narrative Triumph' (or 'narrative Despair' as the case may be) at our table. Something really good happens, even though you flubbed the skill check. Astrogation, for example: A success but with a 'narrative Despair' (where the failure is cancelled) means they make the jump successfully but end up in the middle of a Quarantined System instead of their target. Queue space combat before they can escape.

I strongly disagree with basing checks around player skills. That defeats the whole point of ranking a skill up or being good at doing something. If your party face is presence 2 with no points in negotiate he will fail a lot.

Also as said there should very few do or die checks. Recent session my players needed to jump from a moving airspeeder to a balcony on the upper levels of Nar Shadaa. When one failed he assumed he had died and was slot happier when he took strain and wounds as his character flubbed his tuck and roll and got banged up in the landing

I strongly disagree with basing checks around player skills. That defeats the whole point of ranking a skill up or being good at doing something. If your party face is presence 2 with no points in negotiate he will fail a lot.

Also as said there should very few do or die checks. Recent session my players needed to jump from a moving airspeeder to a balcony on the upper levels of Nar Shadaa. When one failed he assumed he had died and was slot happier when he took strain and wounds as his character flubbed his tuck and roll and got banged up in the landing

I would counter that with the fact that in most other systems, the level of opposition constantly increases as the party gets better themselves. Hence the arms race, 'levels' and challenge ratings.

That said, I would suggest that the positive and negative dice comparisons be strongly considered only for the first 100 or 200 earned XP of characters. After that, they know enough about the system and the GM knows enough about the party that they can both tailor the challenges to be fun, exciting and difficult or a cakewalk depending upon the needs of the story.

Keep in mind that the entire point of the game is to have fun and provide the illusion of freedom of action to the players. Done well, the players have no idea that there was never any real chance of failure and that the fact that they barely survived by the skin of their teeth was due to the GM massaging things as necessary to ensure the right measure of success. That's where the art of GM'ing comes into play and it diverts quite starkly from the "science" of gaming and probability.

I strongly disagree with basing checks around player skills. That defeats the whole point of ranking a skill up or being good at doing something. If your party face is presence 2 with no points in negotiate he will fail a lot.

It's probably more accurate to say that you scale the challenges around the players skills. The checks should still be consistent with the difficulty of the task.

In other words, you don't put a Chubb Sovereign 6428 in front of a party fresh out of chargen, unless maybe you want to send a message. Instead you put some Masterlocks in their way until they are better.

Same as you wouldn't sic a red dragon on a party of 1st level characters in D&D.

I very much disliked playing in games where I "couldn't really fail" and the Gm just kind of Hand waved us through the adventure....

I feel cheated of the Game. I feel like the GM's story was more important than What we Did in the game.

I wonder Why we are even Bothering to roll dice at all.

I don't have a Problem if My character fails.

But When The GM has a Problem with my Character Failing.. it is No longer me playing a Game with My friends.. It becomes GM's Story time.

There's only one way into the base.

You fail the lockpicking roll spectacularly, now the blast-proof doors are locked forever.

Go home and contemplate what you've done wrong.

Alternatively, a failure means you get the doors open, but the entire base is alerted and you now have to fight your way through or run away.

Pick which one you prefer.

Well, Not knowing the adventure Myself for theDetails.

#1... A Base with only one way in is Poor planning.... People always Plan a Back door/escape route. .... also, Air ducts/Ventilation... perhaps a More dangerous way in than through the door ventilation is....

#2 Subterfuge... THink Return of the Jedi On Endor..... They Failed and "Locked" the blast doors.... Yet they still found a Way to "get themselves inside" . Technically they flubbed up that situation twice.

#3.... Yes.. I have played in a game where we Screwed up the mission and Failed..... and we moved on to something else...in other instance we regrouped back at the bat cave and Re-planned the mission for another attempt...

THe PCs don't always win and sometimes that ends up making for a Great story. Me and My friends from that game still talk about that failed mission.

With a Complete failure...... I would have had it set off a Security alarm... not the full Base alert.. just an alert to security that something odd had come up at the door....

Send Crew to investigate....

The group ends up in a fire fight with the security crew that came to figure out what the malfunction was when they open the door.

Think Outside the Box. This is a Lot of what FFG system is all about... Thinking outside the box.

I strongly disagree with basing checks around player skills. That defeats the whole point of ranking a skill up or being good at doing something. If your party face is presence 2 with no points in negotiate he will fail a lot.

Also as said there should very few do or die checks. Recent session my players needed to jump from a moving airspeeder to a balcony on the upper levels of Nar Shadaa. When one failed he assumed he had died and was slot happier when he took strain and wounds as his character flubbed his tuck and roll and got banged up in the landing

This has been said already effectively but I believe the intent wasn't that you choose difficulties for tasks based on their skill levels but that you use skill levels to help you determine what types of tasks are within their abilities when planning the adventure. You decide that you want to present the characters with a simple challenge, then you look at their skills and determine that their slicer character can reasonably handle an average difficulty slicing task. So you build up that part of the scenario to present that level of difficulty. It would make no sense to decide you want the players to slice an imperial military grade secured computer and have the newbie slicer rolling GY vs PPPP. Instead you setup the whole scene as something rather less challenging than that.

Quoting doesn't work on my phone for some reason but using the imperial security computer. Why is the starter slicer trying( to break into it? Why isn't he doing something easier like a crimebosses comp or a backwater imperial place? To me it harkens to level 1 characters fighting and killing a dragon.. I don't want some kid with his playskool codebreaker hacking high end imperial stuff, unless he gets very lucky.

Quoting doesn't work on my phone for some reason but using the imperial security computer. Why is the starter slicer trying( to break into it? Why isn't he doing something easier like a crimebosses comp or a backwater imperial place? To me it harkens to level 1 characters fighting and killing a dragon.. I don't want some kid with his playskool codebreaker hacking high end imperial stuff, unless he gets very lucky.

You seem to have totally missed the point of my post as your question is exactly the point. The people suggesting the use of dice difficulties are recommending that you look at player skills and determine what would present a reasonable challenge based off of those. This is in response to your disagreement with the suggestion that GMs use player skills to determine difficulties.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that you take what should be a difficult challenge and just assign a difficulty to it appropriate to the players. I believe they are recommending you take a look at the player skills and choose a task with a difficulty appropriate to their abilities. If that is not how you would recommend one craft skill challenges for players I'd be interested in hearing your suggestions, but to me and especially for new GMs, I think this is a very appropriate and straightforward approach.

I think people may actually be on the same page but just not understanding each other??

Another way of putting this is you shouldn't have low skill characters going after high skill objectives. You don't have a PC hacker of low skill find an Imperial Intelligence Portacomp...then give it a Simple difficulty to match the PCs skill so he has a good chance of cracking it. The low skill PC needs to find Guido the Killer Pimp's Portacomp and give that a Simple difficulty. Save the mission to recover the Imperial Intelligence Portacomp (5 difficulty) for a high skill adventure further in the campaign.

oh, hmm my apologies than for my mis understanding as yes it seems we agree but I mis understood

I think people may actually be on the same page but just not understanding each other??

Another way of putting this is you shouldn't have low skill characters going after high skill objectives. You don't have a PC hacker of low skill find an Imperial Intelligence Portacomp...then give it a Simple difficulty to match the PCs skill so he has a good chance of cracking it. The low skill PC needs to find Guido the Killer Pimp's Portacomp and give that a Simple difficulty. Save the mission to recover the Imperial Intelligence Portacomp (5 difficulty) for a high skill adventure further in the campaign.

Right, I think we all agree on that. There was just some confusion as some people were recommending dice difficulties for skill challenges as a way to gauge the level of challenge.. I forget the exact numbers but I believe it was roughly player dice pool -1 is relatively easy, even to player dice pool would be a challenge, and dice pool + 1 would be hard.. Something along these lines is a quick easy way to roughly plan out the challenges for your players.

or better yet, if the group has an IDea they might need to slice the net or slice some computers, They ought to be going out and recruiting/hiring an Npc Slicer.

This is the way I would go with running my group.