Being average and having no training, in my mind, is having two green dice. So having two difficulty dice would mean you fail at average tasks half of the time, right?

Green dice have one more success than purple dice have failure, but a failures win the draws.. why not have equal number of symbols on positive and negative, but success symbols win the draws?.. Never mind, not important,

If you are good at something, you should be able to beat an average difficulty most of the time, right? To me Average sounds like something an averaage person should be able to do most of the time, but not in game terms I guess...

So at what level you concider a character to be good at a skill? GGG, YG, YY, YGG? No one right answer to this question I guess, but when do YOU concider a character to know what he or she is doing?

Do you have examples of challenges for different difficulty levels?

Bonus Questions: Are the PC`s meant to have a hard time and fail more than in other systems or are they meant to solve most tasks with skills they are good at, even if it`s not the obvious choice?

Or are GM`s meant to set the difficulty at easy most of the time? Should characters always be able to ask for boost dice if they think it fits their character or the situations? How often doe you use destiny points to upgrade your dice? ... Again, no one true answer to any of these, just how you see it.

I consider a character proficient at 2 ranks, good at 3 ranks, an expert at 4 ranks, and a master at 5 ranks.

Difficulty isn't a fixed point in space though. Someone isn't skilled though unless they have Y dice in the pool, they are just using natural innate talents if they are all G, so Gs would need to exceed Ps to be reasonably successful based on innate stats. Any combination of G and Y in excess of P means a high degree of skill and talent in my mind.

In regards to Boost dice, the rules are pretty wide open for their liberal application, in particular the Assist maneuver.

I think it's more or less common sense you should have a higher degree of success at things you are focused on as opposed to tasks you have no natural talent or skill training in.

The game works best, in my experience, when difficulty dice are consistent, challenge dice are used only when a mechanic calls for it, and setback/boost dice are applied very liberally (but with purpose).

A talented and well-trained character is YYY in my opinion: Characteristic above average, Skill one rank beyond starting level.

I wouldn't call anybody a professional without at least YYG. Considering a locksmith, e.g., being able to open a simple door almost always, that would be a difficulty of P.

Difficulty isn't a fixed point in space though. Someone isn't skilled though unless they have Y dice in the pool, they are just using natural innate talents if they are all G, so Gs would need to exceed Ps to be reasonably successful based on innate stats. Any combination of G and Y in excess of P means a high degree of skill and talent in my mind.

If my Deveronian Performer with a sword cane has 1 in Brawn and 1 in Melee, he still wouldn`t be as good a fighter as the Aqualish Doctor with three in Brawn, even if he has more training, so the Aqualish.

Same with the Besalisk Mechanic with one or two ranks in pilot, but one Agility, the Rodian Marauder still is at least as good of a pilot, even without the training. Characteristics and innate ability plays into it. Doesn`t it? Especially in a system where it is assumed that any character can do every listed skill at a basic level.

A talented and well-trained character is YYY in my opinion: Characteristic above average, Skill one rank beyond starting level.

I wouldn't call anybody a professional without at least YYG. Considering a locksmith, e.g., being able to open a simple door almost always, that would be a difficulty of P.

Again, back to my Devaronian Performer wit a sword cane example, if he only as 1 in brawn, he will never get more than one Yellow. At what level would he be a competent fighter? YGG or YGGG?

In my estimation, an average skill should succeed approximately 50% of the time. Thus GG vs PP is about that. I consider a "competent" fighter to do noticeably better than that. Maybe broken down as:

(Assuming skill is less than attribute)

YG - trained, barely above average

YY - well trained, decent fighter

GGG - Gifted, untrained, above average

YGG - trained, competent fighter

GGGG- Very gifted, untrained, well above average

(If skill is greater than attribute)

YG - well trained, barely above average

YY - well trained, decent fighter

YGG - excellect training, competent fighter

YGGG- Superior Training, well above average

I have only been a player a few times in this game. I have been the GM in almost every RPG I have ever been in too. What I found with the other GMs in this system, and realized it with myself, that setback and boost die are never used enough.

I hate using real life to equate to a RPG but sometimes it can help...sometimes...never with physics though.

So by trade, I am a trained diesel/gasoline engine and jet turbine engine mechanic, and HVAC specialist. Also trained in hydraulic systems and pneumatic ones, and a bunch of other stuff... Anyway, I have a pretty good natural ability for mechanics, and with my technical training, I am quite good. So if I am in a mechanics shop with proper tools, lighting and overall environment, I would give a boost die for that. (I have been in shops where I hated the music, or it was really loud, and I was super annoyed...Setback die). If I am using a tech manual, which you should always do, add in another boost die. Now, I have to go outside and work a piece of equipment. It is an ok day, not too hot or cold, not a glaring sun, that would be a normal difficulty. Now I am trying to do a tune up, with the engine running, the cover off and a big spinning fan 'o death and belts that can chew you up, make you a little paranoid...setback die. Now I have to go work on an HVAC system, it is super hot outside, setback die. Yuck, the thing is covered in spirderwebs! (I hate those) Another setback die. Crap, I didn't bring my metric kit, so I have to use a stoopid adjustable wrench, setback die, maybe an upgrade, Despair means stripped bolt head. I have my assistant with me to hold the manual for me, and he can hand me the tools with out me over reaching or moving back and fourth, two boost for those.

So for me, I look at difficulty and skill as kind of a basic thing. I try to keep my difficulties around average, and maybe sometimes hard. What I like to do now is really throw in the setback dice to show that they are not in a good environment, or perfect working conditions. An average mechanics check on a starship is the ship is on the ground, not in combat, not moving, and you have your multitool. I never, never , never base my difficulty off of the characters skill! I have seen GMs do this and I hate it! Oh, well you are really good at this, so I need to increase the difficulty to give a challenge... If I wanted a challenge, I wouldn't have increased my skill you dumb @@@!

So again, anytime the character has anything favorable, give them a boost die. Anytime they have anything unfavorable going on or around them, give them a setback die. I feel that just being in combat will provide everyone setback die, there is a ton of loud noises, confusion, pandemonium, and sheer chaos going on, let alone people shooting at you! All that is a great distraction. Also, there are so many great Talents that get rid of setback die, that if you don't use the setback dice, then these talents are wasted.

So with your original example. I have two G, against 2 P. Somewhat even odds... Now what will really set this up is those favorable or unfavorable conditions. Do I have the right tools? Do I have a tech manual? Good lighting? Am I cold, getting rained on? Have an obnoxious boss yelling at me every two minutes to get it done faster? So someone that is pretty average, in a good setting should be able to beat the 2 P because he should also be getting at least one if not two or three Boost die. Now he is in the middle of combat, it's dark, raining, he has the wrong type of tool kit, he probably wont pass that average check due to all the setback imposed by the environment/scene. So while the "Difficulty Level" didn't change, the situation around him can have a huge impact on the roll and the chance of success and the degree of it. I have seen GMs just up the difficulty level, adding in purple dice, not setback dice because of a lack of understanding how this system works. I feel this is horribly wrong.

Bonus Question answer. Low XP PC's should be able to pass almost every average to hard check in FAVORABLE conditions. As those conditions change for the worse, so do their chances of success. Remember combat difficulty for a personal scale fight is based off of range. So a novice military recruit can shoot targets at medium range at the shooting range almost every time. They get a boost for the environment, they get a boost for the instructors there to help them, and they can aim. Now, put that recruit in combat, with moving targets(dodge, sidestep/adversary), explosions, a wounded guy next to him screaming in agony, will he be able to hit that same target size at the same range? The range didn't increase, therefore neither should the Base Difficulty. But the situation changed a lot!

Hope this helps a little...sorry it so long.

To me, "good at a skill" means being able to do Hard stuff regularly, or Average stuff in adverse conditions. So YYY or YYGG at least.

To me, "good at a skill" means being able to do Hard stuff regularly, or Average stuff in adverse conditions. So YYY or YYGG at least.

Fair enough. So starting characters are never good at any skills after character creation if they don`t have at least 4 in a characteristic then? or even later if they mostly focus on talents? Or in skills where you have one in the characteristic you will never really be any good.. Tough system! Nothing wrong with that, the system sure makes you feel like a regular guy in a gritty world if you fail at average tasks and challenges a lot of the time. Failing can be fun too, so it`s all good I guess.

Difficulty isn't a fixed point in space though. Someone isn't skilled though unless they have Y dice in the pool, they are just using natural innate talents if they are all G, so Gs would need to exceed Ps to be reasonably successful based on innate stats. Any combination of G and Y in excess of P means a high degree of skill and talent in my mind.

If my Deveronian Performer with a sword cane has 1 in Brawn and 1 in Melee, he still wouldn`t be as good a fighter as the Aqualish Doctor with three in Brawn, even if he has more training, so the Aqualish.

Same with the Besalisk Mechanic with one or two ranks in pilot, but one Agility, the Rodian Marauder still is at least as good of a pilot, even without the training. Characteristics and innate ability plays into it. Doesn`t it? Especially in a system where it is assumed that any character can do every listed skill at a basic level.

It probably isn't good to use hyper technical skills like Piloting as an example as clearly there is a point where the system probably needs some kind of 'need skill rank to perform' rule. However in the case of the melee example, yes, in the real world and not some dojo where there are rules and referees, a 6'6", fit human with the intent to do harm physically will always have advantage over the 5', skinny weak human, with an entry level of training, that's the real world. In any physical skill someone with 3x the basic physicality, is going to perform better than the weakling or bumbler with entry level training.

It probably isn't good to use hyper technical skills like Piloting as an example as clearly there is a point where the system probably needs some kind of 'need skill rank to perform' rule. ..

The game system assumes that all characters within the reality of the setting have a basic level of understanding in every skill on the list. Piloting in SW is more or less riding a bicycle.

Edit: If your career is in a CRB that has a skill, you can do it. Not sure about skills like Lightsaber or Warfare if you play EotE for example.

Fair enough. So starting characters are never good at any skills after character creation if they don`t have at least 4 in a characteristic then? or even later if they mostly focus on talents? Or in skills where you have one in the characteristic you will never really be any good..

Yeah, I'd say so. The problem even with, say, 1 rank of Medicine with 4 Intellect (or tons of training and not that smart) is you will rarely generate the advantages needed to offset the threats, especially if you're up against setback and upgraded Average or Hard challenges. You might succeed, but with complications. This feels to me like a good representation of that kind of capability.

After watching my players flounder around trying to decide where to put their "4" in a 4/3/2/2/2/2 distribution, I encouraged them all to go for 3/3/3/3/2/2. They were a lot happier (or at least stopped fussing about that), but I immediately found I had to tone down the challenges in their main areas of capability. Now they've all hit Dedication and 2 or 3 (or even 4) ranks of skill, they can really hit it out of the park in those areas...

It probably isn't good to use hyper technical skills like Piloting as an example as clearly there is a point where the system probably needs some kind of 'need skill rank to perform' rule. ..

The game system assumes that all characters within the reality of the setting have a basic level of understanding in every skill on the list. Piloting in SW is more or less riding a bicycle.

Edit: If your career is in a CRB that has a skill, you can do it. Not sure about skills like Lightsaber or Warfare if you play EotE for example.

Yes I am aware of the game's basic rules premise, are we discussing game rules in specificity, or the nature of skills and natural talent in general? You're kind of moving the bar around don't you think?

It probably isn't good to use hyper technical skills like Piloting as an example as clearly there is a point where the system probably needs some kind of 'need skill rank to perform' rule. ..

The game system assumes that all characters within the reality of the setting have a basic level of understanding in every skill on the list. Piloting in SW is more or less riding a bicycle.

Edit: If your career is in a CRB that has a skill, you can do it. Not sure about skills like Lightsaber or Warfare if you play EotE for example.

Yes I am aware of the game's basic rules premise, are we discussing game rules in specificity, or the nature of skills and natural talent in general? You're kind of moving the bar around don't you think?

Oh, sorry, it was just a direct answer to piloting not being a good example since it was a hyper technical skill. Within the logic and realism of Star Wars, the Galaxy and this game, I`m just saying it`s just the same as any other skill:)

It really depends on what you qualify as "good".

I'm AFB right now, but IIRC, the text pretty clearly states even a single rank in a skill represents a substantial amount of training. To me that means a single rank could qualify someone as being "good". I would qualify skill ranks as:

• 1 rank: good, but amateur
• 2 ranks: really good, experienced
• 3 ranks: professional
• 4 ranks: best in a well-populated sector
• 5 ranks: among the best in the galaxy

Just my opinion.

I consider a Character "good" at their skill when they have at least 3 dice, 2 of which are yellow or proficient dice.

4 dice with at least 2 yellow for me would be very good/ advanced skill

4 dice with 3 yellow or 5 dice with 2 yellow would be expert

5 dice with 3 yellow I would consider Master and above.

I consider a Character "good" at their skill when they have at least 3 dice, 2 of which are yellow or proficient dice.

4 dice with at least 2 yellow for me would be very good/ advanced skill

4 dice with 3 yellow or 5 dice with 2 yellow would be expert

5 dice with 3 yellow I would consider Master and above.

At what point would a character with 1 in the relevant Characteristic be good?

I consider a Character "good" at their skill when they have at least 3 dice, 2 of which are yellow or proficient dice.

4 dice with at least 2 yellow for me would be very good/ advanced skill

4 dice with 3 yellow or 5 dice with 2 yellow would be expert

5 dice with 3 yellow I would consider Master and above.

At what point would a character with 1 in the relevant Characteristic be good?

For me?

For each yellow not available add 1 Green ..

So if I consider a character "Good" with 3 dice and 2 yellow. then a Character with a stat of 1 would need 4 dice 1 being yellow to be good.

I consider a Character Average with something at between 2 dice and 1 yellow to 3 dice and 1 yellow. or even 3 green no yellow

A Character is Poor at something if they have 2 dice and no yellow or worse. Because if the average check is 2 Purple... 2 purples vs 2 green is going to net a success not very often the averages say the dice pools will cancel each other out.

A Character is Poor at something if they have 2 dice and no yellow or worse. Because if the average check is 2 Purple... 2 purples vs 2 green is going to net a success not very often the averages say the dice pools will cancel each other out.

Actually, they won't. The most common result with even purples and greens should be success with threat.

A Character is Poor at something if they have 2 dice and no yellow or worse. Because if the average check is 2 Purple... 2 purples vs 2 green is going to net a success not very often the averages say the dice pools will cancel each other out.

Actually, they won't. The most common result with even purples and greens should be success with threat.

I know greens have more success symbols than there are failure symbols on a purple, but have you taken into consideration that failures win on a draw?

Not saying you aren`t right, I haven`t done the math and actually hope you are, I`m just asking.

A Character is Poor at something if they have 2 dice and no yellow or worse. Because if the average check is 2 Purple... 2 purples vs 2 green is going to net a success not very often the averages say the dice pools will cancel each other out.

Actually, they won't. The most common result with even purples and greens should be success with threat.

I know greens have more success symbols than there are failure symbols on a purple, but have you taken into consideration that failures win on a draw?

Not saying you aren`t right, I haven`t done the math and actually hope you are, I`m just asking.

I haven't actually done the math myself, and I have not looked at it in a while. Someone else with more experience did all the work a while back.

However thinking about it logically, the draw should already be factored in. To succeed, you need the success symbol. The fact it is more frequent on the Ability dice means it will show up more frequently than Failure on the Difficulty dice. Since there are less failures, that means there is even less chance for the Success to be canceled.

In one of the Bond movies, when someone (maybe Q?) mentions how something works on the average person he responds something to the effect of, "I don't meet many average people in this business."

I wouldn't look at the game's rules to try and decide this sort of thing for me. In fact, the game rules say that you shouldn't be rolling for mundane, average stuff so the game mechanics aren't really set up to reflect this. Parallel parking is a challenge for some people in real life but that wouldn't make me yank out dice and tell a player to roll when he parked his landspeeder. The average person just does his average things without needing to roll. He parallel parks... unless its important that he doesn't. He might never imagine that a lock is "average to pick" because, to him, it isn't. To an adventurer, though, it's a different story... and THAT is the story we're telling.

A Character is Poor at something if they have 2 dice and no yellow or worse. Because if the average check is 2 Purple... 2 purples vs 2 green is going to net a success not very often the averages say the dice pools will cancel each other out.

Actually, they won't. The most common result with even purples and greens should be success with threat.

I know greens have more success symbols than there are failure symbols on a purple, but have you taken into consideration that failures win on a draw?

Not saying you aren`t right, I haven`t done the math and actually hope you are, I`m just asking.

I haven't actually done the math myself, and I have not looked at it in a while. Someone else with more experience did all the work a while back.

However thinking about it logically, the draw should already be factored in. To succeed, you need the success symbol. The fact it is more frequent on the Ability dice means it will show up more frequently than Failure on the Difficulty dice. Since there are less failures, that means there is even less chance for the Success to be canceled.

There is only one more success and if you get an equal number of failures and sucesses, you fail.

I haven't actually done the math myself, and I have not looked at it in a while. Someone else with more experience did all the work a while back.

GGPP has an overall probability of at least one success of about 43.5%, according to the dice roll simulator at <<http://game2.ca/eote/?montecarlo=100000#proficiency=2&difficulty=2>.

Once you know where to go, it’s not hard to figure out what the probabilities are of various combinations.