Hi folks, we likely all know the issues with advantage and success competing with each other by being on the same dice. This of course results in success with disadvantage being the most common outcome and succeeding with multiple advantages exceedingly rare.

(For anyone that care, you can read here: https://illuminatinggames.wordpress.com/2014/09/19/star-wars-age-of-rebellion-a-deep-dive-on-dice-probabilities/)

Anyway, that is not what this topic is about. I wanted to discuss the idea of rolling the dice pool twice, the first time, only counting the success and failures (and Triumph and Despair). The second time, counting only the advantage and disadvantage. I've been playing in and GMing a couple of games where we have done this and I can't help but think that it generates results closer to what the developers intended. Your amount of advantage or disadvantage is not tied to whether you are successful or not.

The effects of this that I have noticed so far are:

- The dice are less predictable in their results, all four combinations of results turn up more often, not just success+threat and failure+advantage

- The predictability of the dice is based on the difficulty of the maneuver. If you are doing something very easy, you will likely get success+advantage.

- Relating to the above, easy things tend to end well, harder things tend to end poorly

- Players uncomfortable with the degree or narrative randomness coming into the game appreciated the more foreseeable results

- A lot more advantage is spent on doing interesting things, not just waiting for triumphs.

- Weapon properties are used more often (yes this makes autofire come up more often), which differentiates abilities more

- As we all use a dice app, it does not slow down play

Has anybody else tried this? What did you think? Did you keep doing it or go back to the original design?

Hi folks, we likely all know the issues with advantage and success competing with each other by being on the same dice. This of course results in success with disadvantage being the most common outcome and succeeding with multiple advantages exceedingly rare.

Yes, it's not an issue, it's intentional. On the latter point, that's the reality of being a new character. However, it starts to disappear at higher levels of play, because as you gain skill ranks, success with multiple advantages becomes more common. So this comment:

I can't help but think that it generates results closer to what the developers intended.

...seems ill-considered.

The symbols are supposed to compete with one another, that's a cornerstone of game play balance. Remove the cornerstone, balance collapses.

Not to crust the hopes and dreams of someone with only 4 posts, but that's a terrible idea.

Your group may need to find more reasons for Boost and Setback dice, at a guess.

I'm pretty sure the devs intended the game as it is now. They intended the game to be balanced, and fast paced, both qualities that would disappear if you'd implement this house rule. Interpreting the dice is a huge part of the fun in this system, and if you don't like it, maybe the system is just not for you

While I have no problem with rolling twice if using the dice app, I don't really see how doing this has the effect you're claiming. If the roll is likely to generate threat, then it will be likely to generate threat regardless of how many times you roll the dice. While it's true that a success will usually mean one less advantage, it's equally true that fails and threat work in the same way.

Also, your argument is not internally consistent. In particular:

"The effects of this that I have noticed so far are:

- The dice are less predictable in their results, all four combinations of results turn up more often, not just success+threat and failure+advantage"

Is directly opposed to:

"- The predictability of the dice is based on the difficulty of the maneuver. If you are doing something very easy, you will likely get success+advantage.

- Players uncomfortable with the degree or narrative randomness coming into the game appreciated the more foreseeable results"

So on one hand you are stating that rolling twice is less predictable, yet the it is better because you can predict more easily what is happening...

While I have no problem with rolling twice if using the dice app, I don't really see how doing this has the effect you're claiming.

All it does is increase the variability of the results. It would introduce the possibility of massive success and massive advantage (along with massive failure and massive threat).

Currently, if the die face is a success, it means it's not an advantage (or only a single advantage), which means less advantages to counter threat from the opposing dice.

Likewise, if the die face is an advantage, it means it's not a success (or only a single success), which means less success to counter failure from the opposing dice.

The same is true for rolling twice as the OP described, except the roll for success does not generate threat, and the roll for advantage does not generate failure. So you could roll all double successes against blanks and get massive success on the first roll; and roll all double advantages against blanks on the second roll...and of course you could have the opposite effect if you blanked on your positive dice but maxed the negative.

Jay Little and Sam Stewart have mentioned on our show a few times that (paraphrasing) "the dice results tend to skew towards success with threat, or failure with advantage. This is how we intended it."

I can understand what you're going for, but I honestly haven't had this much as a problem. More often than not my PCs rapidly get to a point where success with a boatload of advantage is possible and common. Take my Ace Driver with a 5 Agility, 3 ranks of Range (Heavy) and a carbine with an underslung flame thrower for instance. He has no problems getting enough success and advantage to absolutely obliterate anything before him at Medium range, even more so at Short range. My Duros Mechanic PC just got her 6th point of Intellect, so I have to come up with outlandish or extremely difficult scenarios to challenger her (and I do) and she still usually skates by with both Success and Advantage. Or she succeeds with a lot of threat, as the Devs intended.

In my opinion and your mileage may vary, the fun of this game is the unpredictable nature of the dice. Some of the best moments in my group have been from success with threat or failure with advantage. The narrative system is there to make each action have multiple possibilities not just a good outcome and a bad outcome (hit or miss, pass or fail). Narrating those multiple outcomes is what has made this system so much fun to run. My players have warmed up to the idea and now I get them saying things like "okay how about this happens" and I notice that everyone is watching each turn because they don't want to miss what happens.

In my opinion and your mileage may vary, the fun of this game is the unpredictable nature of the dice. Some of the best moments in my group have been from success with threat or failure with advantage. The narrative system is there to make each action have multiple possibilities not just a good outcome and a bad outcome (hit or miss, pass or fail). Narrating those multiple outcomes is what has made this system so much fun to run. My players have warmed up to the idea and now I get them saying things like "okay how about this happens" and I notice that everyone is watching each turn because they don't want to miss what happens.

I sort of thought unpredictable was the point? It's why we roll dice isn't it?

Well, I always make a "warm-up" roll when I roll the dices. Then I roll them for realz. Whatever the result in 2nd roll, that's what I'll use.