I know there are people on these forums who have in-depth understanding of the dice outlier ratios, and would appreciate them taking a look at this variant difficulty base.

First, I have concerns about Despair being superfluous in many opposed checks, and would like to reduce or eliminate them from some checks, mostly to stay within a narrative.

With that in mind, I've considered two options:

The easiest, as GM, is to flip a DS Destiny token to Downgrade 1 Challenge die. The second is to build the difficulty using Setback in place of Difficulty and Difficulty in place of Challenge, and adding +1 Difficulty.

I'm looking for an option that still allows players to generate narrative outliers but that don't "derail" player narrative with despairing consequences. This I feel will make true moments of Despair more significant narrative hurdles.

Thanks for taking the time to look at this. I'd do more research on this myself, but my internet access blows...it took me twenty minutes just to type this.

What kind of opposed checks are causing you issue? A lot of checks that are traditionally "opposed" can be dumped down to regular difficulty if it's just an odds and ends situation and not some big important thing.

The different between a difficulty and challenge die when it comes to actual success/failure is really pretty small, so the world won't end if you stick to purple and black on throw-away checks.

First, I have concerns about Despair being superfluous in many opposed checks, and would like to reduce or eliminate them from some checks, mostly to stay within a narrative.

Couldn't disagree more, they are my best friend especially with opposed checks.

I have a feeling you might think this because you may be over-imagining the negative impact of a Despair. The core book makes it sound completely terrible, and they make Triumph sound completely amazing. But if you look at the "how to spend in combat" charts (p206/207), they aren't as terrible or amazing as is implied by the fluff.

A Triumph can upgrade the next attack on your side, or upgrade the difficulty of an attack made by the other side.

A Despair can give you an "out of ammo" result, which is really just a way to shake things up, make the player spend extra maneuvers, or think outside the box. Or it can upgrade the difficulty of the other side's next check, or damage the weapon being used.

None of these are particularly terrible or amazing. So when you get Despairs in a non-combat situation, scale accordingly. Despairs allow you to shake things up. They also allow your NPCs to be a challenge. Don't get rid of Despairs, they are the best way to inject interesting consequences into the game.

You spend the Despairs as GM, so they're only as bad as you want them to be. Since you have 100% control over their impact to PCs shouldn't be a big deal.

Also, as a GM, you can "pocket" the despairs and use them later when it fits into the story better.

Also, as a GM, you can "pocket" the despairs and use them later when it fits into the story better.

I personally do this quite a bit, saving Despair results and using them as "triggers" for events later in the adventure that make the PCs' lives more complicated.

It actually heightens tension on the party's part (at least for my group) as they know something bad is coming, but don't know what it is or when it'll drop.

Pocketing works really well, you can even use them to trigger events you had planned and would have happened anyway, essentially the old "either path leads to the same place" technique.

Also Opposed checks are not supposed to be the norm. Charming a Bartender for a bit of info shouldn't be Opposed, Hotwireing a speeder isn't Opposed, combat checks are not Opposed. But negotiating with a major NPC, that's Opposed.

Also, as a GM, you can "pocket" the despairs and use them later when it fits into the story better.

I personally do this quite a bit, saving Despair results and using them as "triggers" for events later in the adventure that make the PCs' lives more complicated.

It actually heightens tension on the party's part (at least for my group) as they know something bad is coming, but don't know what it is or when it'll drop.

I also do this, but I make a point of tying it back to the check that caused it in some way.

For instance, a failed Streetwise check to find a bounty could tip of the bounty that the PCs are after them. I tell the PCs that I am saving that despair, but secretly some thugs overheard the them asking around for the guy, and the guy sent some thugs of his own to harry the PCs later on in the adventure.

What I'm asking is "Are the Failure/Threat ratios comparable if I use Setback/Difficulty instead of Difficulty/Challenge? Would adding +1 Difficulty be upping the Failure and/or Threat disproportionately?"

The question is in regards to outlier ratios, not alternative uses and interpretations of Despair.

Thank you.

http://maxmahem.net/wp/star-wars-edge-of-the-empire-die-probabilities/

Here are the %s if you are just interested in numbers.

What I'm asking is "Are the Failure/Threat ratios comparable if I use Setback/Difficulty instead of Difficulty/Challenge?

No. A setback has a 1/3 chance of generating a failure. A difficulty die has 3/8, and one of those is a double. Threat is also generated more frequently on a difficulty die, just count the faces. So basically you're making everything easier.

Would adding +1 Difficulty be upping the Failure and/or Threat disproportionately?

Depends. If a difficulty was Easy (1), and you've replaced the difficulty with a setback + difficulty, then it's much worse. If a difficulty was Daunting (4) and you've replaced the difficulty with 4 setback + 1 difficulty, it's probably still easier.

The question is in regards to outlier ratios, not alternative uses and interpretations of Despair.

It seems to me the crux if your concern centres around exactly that issue. If you're feeling that Despair derails everything, then rather than reinventing the entire scaling system, maybe just change how you interpret Despair.

It seems to me the crux if your concern centres around exactly that issue. If you're feeling that Despair derails everything, then rather than reinventing the entire scaling system, maybe just change how you interpret Despair.

This. There is no way to 'derail' the narrative for the PCs with a Despair result when the GM is the one in control of how they are spent, or even if, it's all already completely at the GM's discretion, so concerns over %s are misplaced.

Here are the %s if you are just interested in numbers.

I've been a programmer for too long. I was looking for the value for this placeholder.

Things are pretty straight forward until a triumph or a despair shows up to turn things on their wears. That's when the fun really starts.

Things are pretty straight forward until a triumph or a despair shows up to turn things on their wears.

Wears? How does something get turned on it’s wear?

Things are pretty straight forward until a triumph or a despair shows up to turn things on their wears.

Wears? How does something get turned on it’s wear?

Can I blame autocorrect?

Thanks for the link.

Things are pretty straight forward until a triumph or a despair shows up to turn things on their wears.

Wears? How does something get turned on it’s wear?

Can I blame autocorrect?

There are worse typos. I found out how close the Y and U keys are to one another when I made an embarrassing mistake chatting with a girl named Cynthia...

Things are pretty straight forward until a triumph or a despair shows up to turn things on their wears.

Wears? How does something get turned on it’s wear?

Can I blame autocorrect?

There are worse typos. I found out how close the Y and U keys are to one another when I made an embarrassing mistake chatting with a girl named Cynthia...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...............

Things are pretty straight forward until a triumph or a despair shows up to turn things on their wears. That's when the fun really starts.

What Haley said. Despairs, more than Triumphs, are great at changing the narrative in ways that neither the players nor the GM had ever imagined. Some of the best sessions I've had were ones where a despair was rolled which changed the course of the game. In fact, despairs will sometimes end up benefiting the characters in the long run because of the uncharted courses that the game can take, leading to fun, adventure, and even profit

Despairs are your friend, and even the friend of your players, whether or not they might think so when one comes up. It's all part of the narrative nature of the game, and if used correctly, will add lots to the enjoyment of your sessions.

Things are pretty straight forward until a triumph or a despair shows up to turn things on their wears.

Wears? How does something get turned on it’s wear?

Can I blame autocorrect?

There are worse typos. I found out how close the Y and U keys are to one another when I made an embarrassing mistake chatting with a girl named Cynthia...

Ohhh emmm geee!!!!

Things are pretty straight forward until a triumph or a despair shows up to turn things on their wears.

Wears? How does something get turned on it’s wear?

Can I blame autocorrect?

There are worse typos. I found out how close the Y and U keys are to one another when I made an embarrassing mistake chatting with a girl named Cynthia...

Fycking geniys

Also, as a GM, you can "pocket" the despairs and use them later when it fits into the story better.

Hadn't thought about it that way. Always assumed the Despair counted only for the instance of that action/situation, rather than a longer term consequence that may rear it's ugly head later...

Definitely keep that under consideration in the future.