In running my campaign I've noticed it's common for the group of players to discuss which among them should perform the dice check for the action they've decided to take.

I don't think this should necessarily happen every time (some players may be suggested by the group for the dice checks more often than others due to their stats , but I want everyone to be involved).

One encounter I had the player that came up with what to do make the dice check instead of having another group discussion about who should roll. Should I continue to encourage the player that comes up with an idea to make the dice check?

Also, another situation. Some players seem to be looking to me to provide them with their possible solutions to problems rather than using their imagination to come up with a possible solution on their own. I didn't notice until a player looked straight at me and asked what are their options.

I gave out vague suggestions but seeing as this was a conversation based encounter and they knew what information they needed, all that they would need to do is take a look at the skills listed on their character sheets. If they are completely stumped and it will stop the session from progressing I should obviously give them hints. However, should I maybe remind them that they can think of their own solutions to the problem at hand?

Do they have a video game mentality? Some of my players do that. They have an expectation that there is only one solution to a given problem and talking amongst themselves usually implies they're deciding who will have the best chance of success. Whilst it does largely depend on what sort of checks they are talking about, try:

* asking yourself if they have the appropriate equipment for whatever the skill check is. Many of my players assume they can do computer or medicine checks without having any kind of slicing gear or medical equipment.

* spending Threat or Despair to split the party up.

* give them a limited amount of time to make a decision. Mimic alarms and oncoming adversaries in the narrative, give them a reason to be impulsive!

And yes, I typically gesture to the player who had the idea to take the initiative. They can always say no and delegate.

If they ask you what their options are, maybe ask back "well, what are you capable of?" and suggest they spend Destiny points to come up with imaginative solutions if they're convinced their character isn't appropriately skilled.

Since you mentioned a conversation/social encounter and if you're after examples from an official source, try the sidebar of page 75 on Far Horizons.

One encounter I had the player that came up with what to do make the dice check instead of having another group discussion about who should roll. Should I continue to encourage the player that comes up with an idea to make the dice check?

Making the person with the idea roll doesn't sit well with me. Just because the Player had an idea, doesn't mean the Character would have that idea or even try it. Plus sometimes it is easier to come up with an idea/advice for someone else than it is for yourself. Without knowing the players, it is hard to say if that would be a good idea for your group. The best option is probably to talk to the players about what the expectations are at the table.

In running my campaign I've noticed it's common for the group of players to discuss which among them should perform the dice check for the action they've decided to take.

If they are still getting to know their characters, the system, and what they can do, then that kind of thing can be expected. It may take time for them to realize Bob is the better pilot and Sally is the better engineer. You need to know why they are doing it. They may be trying to "win" or they may still be figuring out the system and characters. If they are doing it to try and "win" perhaps gently nudging/reminding them to do what their characters would help. When in doubt talk to them if something is bothering you.

Some players seem to be looking to me to provide them with their possible solutions to problems rather than using their imagination to come up with a possible solution... should I maybe remind them that they can think of their own solutions to the problem at hand?

Without being at the table or knowing those involved it can be hard to know why they are having trouble coming up with ideas. I would remind them if it seems like it is needed. I would also talk to them and find out why they are having trouble coming up with ideas. Maybe they are coming from playing adventures where there are no choices or very limited choices and are having trouble coming up with ideas. Maybe you are not clear enough in the objectives or have shot down too many of their ideas in the past or are presenting scenarios where there are no "obvious" solutions or maybe they just like to be led by the nose through an adventure. Maybe they are not familiar with the setting or are not used to such an open style of game and will take some time to get into the groove of things. Try asking them why they are having trouble coming up with ideas.

One thing too consider is if you leave it too wide open, the paradox of choice starts to rear it's head. If they can't make a decision because there are too many options, you may have to set up scenarios where there are one or two "obvious" paths or even a giant glowing "plot this way" sign. Sometimes some players need you to lead them in the right direction (or really any direction, so lead them in the wrong direction because that is usually more fun).

Should I continue to encourage the player that comes up with an idea to make the dice check?

should I maybe remind them that they can think of their own solutions to the problem at hand?

First is tough to answer without context of what is happening and what kind of check. In structured play when the clock is ticking as it were, it probably is justified to have the idea guy make the roll. If it's a narrative game play scenario I think there is more wiggle room.

Second question is probably an indication you need to have a talk outside play. Dunno the relative experience of the players, but you should be providing objectives and answering questions, not making the plan for them.

The first question, about who makes the dice roll, is kind of contextual. It depends on the current situation. If the group is all in the same place and, say, trying to bypass a locked door, then the group can come up with a plan or idea, then decide who should make the roll. If the group is, say, fleeing from a battalion of stormtroopers, and one of the players has the idea to shoot a panel to close a blast door, then I would say that the person who came up with the idea is the one who takes the shot. The group is hurried, there isn't time to shout instructions or whatnot to the rest of the group. And its a bit more dramatic, that way. Ultimately, its your decision.

The second question...where a player turns to you and says 'What are our options?', my reply to that would be to say "I don't know...what are your options?". This is totally up to the players to solve. Present them with an issue or challenge, then excuse yourself and go get a cold Mt. Dew or other Lovely Beverage from the fridge. While they may be a bit irked that you aren't giving them a hint or clue, they'll quickly figure out that this is all on them to work out and solve. I had a group playing a Fantasy Role Playing Game come across a creature that challenged interlopers with riddles. They tried asking me for hints and making 'smarts' checks to try and solve it, but all I did was repeat the riddle. After several false answers and scorch marks, the group bashed their way through. But afterwards remarked that the riddles were very fun and very challenging.

A bit of context for the first question.

The majority of the group has a moderate videogaming background. That is to say, several have played videogames, only 2 I would consider to be gamers that have played a variety. The rest have a more limited background with videogames. I cannot be 100% certain they are trying to "win", though I do get that feeling sometimes with how they want the person with the best dice to roll in most situations.

I agree that discussions about who should do things is warranted during narrative moments but I want to avoid it happening in every situation.

The relative experience for RPGs is 0. Every group I'm GMing for except for the one that hasn't started yet (group 3) is brand new to P&P RPGs. I have been trying my best on giving objectives and answering questions. It may have just been a moment when they didn't really know how else they could do things, though that encounter had been in the same session in which we already had a conversational encounter take place in which they considered multiple ways of doing things.

All I know is it felt like I was just handing it out to them because I had to say " well you've already tried charming the fellow and it didnt work, so maybe a different approach. " Then they ask " like what " and I had to name off all of the conversational skills one might use.

Many of my players assume they can do computer or medicine checks without having any kind of slicing gear or medical equipment.

By RAW they can totally make a computers or medicine check without the proper equipment.

You'd be in your rights as GM to increase/setback/upgrade the difficulty of that check, but you should absolutely be letting them attempt it if they want to. If they succeed on that computers check despite the odds stack against them, maybe somebody used the password "guest", "password", "123456", or some other silly password.

For the medicine check maybe they just duct tape a wound or something. It's not pretty, but it does stop the bleeding for the moment. You'll still want to see a real doctor later, but it's good enough to hold you for now.

If they have zero RP xp then if you want to spend the time you could sort through youtube and look up some game play videos, you could find some clips I'm sure showing how things are 'supposed' to be done by PCs in regards to coming up with plans.

In running my campaign I've noticed it's common for the group of players to discuss which among them should perform the dice check for the action they've decided to take.

I don't think this should necessarily happen every time (some players may be suggested by the group for the dice checks more often than others due to their stats , but I want everyone to be involved).

One encounter I had the player that came up with what to do make the dice check instead of having another group discussion about who should roll. Should I continue to encourage the player that comes up with an idea to make the dice check?

Also, another situation. Some players seem to be looking to me to provide them with their possible solutions to problems rather than using their imagination to come up with a possible solution on their own. I didn't notice until a player looked straight at me and asked what are their options.

I gave out vague suggestions but seeing as this was a conversation based encounter and they knew what information they needed, all that they would need to do is take a look at the skills listed on their character sheets. If they are completely stumped and it will stop the session from progressing I should obviously give them hints. However, should I maybe remind them that they can think of their own solutions to the problem at hand?

The big problem with paper gaming today is the Video Game mentality. A lot of players all but expect a set of options to pop up on the GMs forehead so they can click on one of the buttons. They also have gotten into the hack, slash and take stuff routine. Both are bad habits that need to be broken. Violently....

Maybe a sit down with the players out of game explaining how paper gaming is supposed to work. Also you can get an idea of what they want to get out of the game. Some people love roleplaying the minutia and are good at it. They can make traveling between two towns in a wagon into comedy gold and it could take two sessions to get to the dungeon without a single planned encounter going off and everyone has fun. Others are more action oriented and the character interaction is painful to watch.

One thing I did with a Pathfinder campaign was write up montage paragraphs. I would write out an entertaining story to cover what was happening for travel and such. In that way things like traveling down the road in a wagon for three or four days was dealt with in a few paragraphs and the players got to the action faster. We didn't need to deal with wasting game time with "Ok, what are you doing at the inn..." and the like. If there wasn't any real roleplaying that was going to happen I figured why bother trying to get them to roleplay. Everyone had fun, the campaign lasted almost a year, and that was with mostly teenagers. I think it could have gone on for longer if it hadn't been for church luring my players away with promises of being paid to run AV for them and soccer practices.

I've also run campaigns where the battles were inconveniences in between the long roleplaying with the characters interacting with each other and the NPCs. One guy would take over the session with his flamboyant swashbuckler finding a fancy party and seducing the least available woman. Hilarity would ensue. The other players just sat back and enjoyed the show. Everyone had fun.

So the first thing to find out is what do they want and is it the same as what you want.

Here's my $0.02 on the question of letting characters decide amongst themselves who makes the dice roll: "Take the professor in back and plug 'im into the hyperdrive." Seriously. Han knew that somebody needed to figure out what the heck was wrong with his ship, and his idea was to check out the hyperdrive. But he also knew that Threepio stood the best chance of doing that successfully. Think about how this works in real life:

• The coach comes up with the play, the players execute it
• The platoon commander comes up with a battle plan, and gives orders for how it's carried out
• The director envisions a certain performance, the actors are directed to give that performance

Just because I have an idea doesn't mean I'm the best equipped to carry it out. I say: as long as it's plausible for the PCs to be talking to each other, the players can brainstorm together. Maybe just make them talk in character or something to work that out.

All I know is it felt like I was just handing it out to them because I had to say " well you've already tried charming the fellow and it didnt work, so maybe a different approach. " Then they ask " like what " and I had to name off all of the conversational skills one might use.

Honestly I think that's kind of normal depending on background. It's not a video game mentality. I get this with my group, and we've been playing for decades. However, this is the first really "narrative" game they've ever played, all games previously have been dungeon crawls or wilderness hikes in the same kind of vein: travel, kill, loot. The other GM in our group still runs in that way...he calls Edge of the Empire the "most awesome game he'll never run", because he can't seem to break out of the mould. Any kind of social encounter has been a mystery...now that I think back, there weren't even any skills for it, so honestly more often handled as a player vs GM kind of interaction, very often with players threatening to up the ante in some game-breaking way, and the GM hinting that all bets were off in the next encounter.

Granted, it didn't happen a lot, but social encounters were just a void. No wonder I was craving this system.

So the first few sessions were a bit bumpy in that regard, the very first session the "other GM" wanted to intimidate a thug who'd been following them. So he pulls his blaster, puts it to the thug's head and says "who do you work for?"

Me: okay, so that's a Coercion check.

Player: what? I have a blaster to his head. If somebody had a blaster to my head I'd talk!

So I actually had to explain (while remembering that's how those stupid arguments started in the past) that it's a form of combat, and that failure means he simply doesn't believe you're going to pull the trigger (because it would be murder, in broad daylight, on the main street, in your home town), or he's too afraid of the consequences of telling and walking free. Fast forward a dozen sessions, and everybody is pretty much on board.

So if your group is new to all this, the number of options are probably overwhelming, so you'll probably need to provide options for a while until they see how the system works. It can be a long process of providing options and weaning them off their reliance on you, but eventually it will pay off.

From what I can tell they all seem to want similar out of the game to what I do. A mix of narrative and action. The majority of the group chose careers and specs that aren't combat focused. Some of them have shown surprisingly that they can roleplay, especially at times that I hadn't expected them to (for instance, role-playing a conversation with a NPC I had not statted due to being a side character they wouldn't encounter again unless they decide to go back to that cantina).

They're probably just testing the waters so to speak with how things can be done. I'll continue to provide options until they are confident and familiar with the system then.

However, should I maybe remind them that they can think of their own solutions to the problem at hand?

I had games where the GM was very descriptive in what options our characters had, and some others who gave us free reigns about everything. Both are accpetable, both were super fun, it's a matter of style of play. Ask yourself what kind of game you want to play and be assume your style.

Just be careful about extremes; too much control and the game feels like a railroad, not enough guidance put the players in doubt about their every move.

For the first question,

It depends on who is where.

If it is a Mechanics check, and the Pilot has the Best mechanics, but is currently flying the ship, well then some one else needs to make the roll.

Or if the group is split between two different locations, well then they can't really have some one in two places at once.

For the second question.

For new Players, I might help them at first, But I wean them off that and just turn it back on them,

"What do you think you should do?"

Here's an example of the first question. After a combat encounter I allowed them to make a medicine check on each injured PC. There were only 2 that took wounds. One of them was the only PC that actually had a medpac. The group discussed who should make the medicine check and it fell to another PC, the one with the dice advantage. They didn't want the penalty from not having the right equipment so I ruled that they could share the medpac outside of combat (are there rules on sharing items that I missed in the CRB?).

I told them that if they were attempting to make medicine checks in the middle of combat that they wouldn't be able to share it because everything would be happening more or less at the same time.

Now this doesn't seem all that bad but the player who actually spent the credits at character creation on the emergency medpac hasn't had the opportunity to use it due to the players wanting the best possible outcome to happen.

Why couldn't they share in combat? Sure, you might say it takes a maneuver (maybe even one from each to toss and catch depending where they are relative to each other), but preventing it entirely seems severe.

I'm not sure why there would be any restriction in sharing anyway. If the players as a group decide to let the PC with the best dice pool roll, and the PC that bought the medpack is okay with it, then why intervene?

I agree sharing equipment isn't an issue beyond the mechanics of billing maneuvers for readying/drawing gear during structured play.

So the individual items they spent credits on at character creation should really be viewed as the group's items then?

I'm just trying to get an understanding of what should be allowed, cuz only one player felt the need to get a medpac for the group and then they aren't even getting a chance to use it. Maybe they're happy with that. After the next session I plan to ask for some feedback (it'll be the third session with this group in particular).

They can share anything they like, whether someone can put it to particularly good effect will vary on the PC of course.

PCs don't have to share of course, it's their call, but passing an E-Medpac around isn't a big deal. Now, it's not spelled out in the CRB but if you wanted to impose some kind of X# of uses of it before supplies need to be replenished in it, that's perfectly acceptable.

Thanks for all the help, I appreciate it.

I was planning on ruling it similar to blasters, if I happen to upgrade a medicine check's difficulty and they roll a Despair/3+ Threat, they run out of their supplies after that use and will need to purchase another.

It's as good a way as any.

Many of my players assume they can do computer or medicine checks without having any kind of slicing gear or medical equipment.

By RAW they can totally make a computers or medicine check without the proper equipment.

You'd be in your rights as GM to increase/setback/upgrade the difficulty of that check, but you should absolutely be letting them attempt it if they want to. If they succeed on that computers check despite the odds stack against them, maybe somebody used the password "guest", "password", "123456", or some other silly password.

For the medicine check maybe they just duct tape a wound or something. It's not pretty, but it does stop the bleeding for the moment. You'll still want to see a real doctor later, but it's good enough to hold you for now.

To clarify: I never said I don't let them let them try, that's half the fun. Especially when FFG even devises a mechanic to succeed at tasks deemed impossible .

In the context of this thread, "can do" is "succeed without fail." If a group is caught discussing who should do a certain skillcheck, they should consider deferring to the person who has the right tools or equipment (or largely, just the most narrative sense). Because hypothetically, what good is a Medic/Doctor/whatever in your group when the party favours the computer technician doing Medicine rolls because they have the highest Intellect? Granted there is lots to take into account (skill ranks, Triumphs, etc.) but that's a video game attitude and it's no fun at the table.

that is one of the funny things about some of the responses I get on this forum...

I get responses about not hindering the narrative and story, yet when it comes down to it, those are the same people suggesting things like this that break the narrative in favor of what gives the chances of the best possible outcome in favor of the player(s).

Roleplay Vs Roll play.

I just find it Ironic.

Context is everything. I think there will always be a divide between the mechanical and the narrative components of the game. But when it really does come down to it, what most people settle for is what's the most fun.

So the individual items they spent credits on at character creation should really be viewed as the group's items then?

No...or yes...IMHO it's not a question the GM needs to be concerned about, so there is no real answer.