In a good game, where everyonoe is playing fair, you should always "yes and..." for the best possible roleplaying game experience. Everyone is telling the story! [exception only made for players acting in an unfair matter]

I have said time and again that you can say NO at times, but I am more in the Yes camp. And of course gm's no doesn't take away all player choices, it just limits it a bit and makes the game more boring in my opinion if no is used more than yes and is the go-to answer for the gm.

You have time and time again completely different things. You keep changing your story. One time it's "Always yes, unless douchbags" other times, including here, its "Mostly Yes, at GMs discretion." You even explicitly disagreed with me above when I said there are reasons other than "douchebags" to say no.

It's whatever suits your argument. I would say choose a position and stop the condescension, but it's pointless to try to discuss it further.

That doesn't mean you can never say no. Or that YOU can't say no whenever you want in your game. Or that you shouldn't absolutely say no when someone isn't playing fair and being a douchebag player.

I still mean that.

I shoot for always yes in my game. I trust my current players so that is cool. But I incourage everyone to say yes as much as they can. Shoot for always and maybe end up with Mostly.

I didn't mean to come off as condescending. I am sorry if I did.

I have run into players (and I am not saying you fit this description) who try to mask beefing up certain stats and ignoring others by ensuring they never ever roll using the neglected stat. Even if the situation warranted it as a particular check.

Yeah, this. Players that intentionally take dumps stats and then try to weasel out of using them when appropriate can be a serious pain.

*waits for anti-player accusations*

Haha, no, I absolutely agree with that one!

Yeah, this. Players that intentionally take dumps stats and then try to weasel out of using them when appropriate can be a serious pain.

*waits for anti-player accusations*

This is so true!

I had one player that constantly took back rolls when I told him what the check was.

"My Intellect is too low! I won't do that."

"My presence sucks! What else can I do?"

And so on...

Finding alternate ways to solve a problem with your strength can be fine if done right. With some roleplaying that can be fun. But playing to your weaknesses in other situations is very cool too and should be awarded. Showing how terrible your character is at Something can be just as rewarding as showing how awesome you are at other things.. But yea, min/maxers who are out to win the game and wont use their low stats when it makes sense irritate me too! Glad I don't have them in my current game!

I tell my Players that they can use alternate Skills but if they do they will get different results based off of the Skill they use. Sometimes though that results won't be what the Player was going for...

I feel it's good roleplaying for players to try to find a creative way around their dump stat, I'm surprised there's vitriol around the process. I suppose it's okay to craft egalitarian characters but I've always found characters with flaws to be more interesting.

I feel it's good roleplaying for players to try to find a creative way around their dump stat, I'm surprised there's vitriol around the process. I suppose it's okay to craft egalitarian characters but I've always found characters with flaws to be more interesting.

I agree. And I think there is a difference between Tyrion Lannister trying to get out of fighting by using his charm in some situations and Tyrion Lannister trying to weasel out of the fact that he has a 1 in brawn by just avoiding the subject and pretending it`s not so, or trying to say he can swing his axe using coercion... Roleplaying around your weaknesses and using your strength`s to your advantage is fun and entetaining for everyone and can lead to some very creative and good roleplaying situations. I absolutely incourage that aspect of it. But creating characters with dump-stats just to ignore those weaknesses of the character, to have the perfect(read boring) character is not fun for anyone and irritates me. Using your strengths whenever you can, because you are aware of your weknesses and play that out too, through good roleplaying is not the same as weaseling out of even eknowledging your character`s wekanesses and flaws...

Edit: I get the feeling that some games are way more "gm vs players" than what I am used to these days.

This is where the "Yes And..." attitude comes into play for our game and it feels like everyone is contributing to make the game more enjoyable for everyone.

Some of my players even suggest bad things happening to their characters because it makes the whole story more interesting,

situation more fun or it makes sense for the character to get black dice in a situation. It also creates trust.

Though I have been in games where the focus and attitudes have been different too. Hey, it`s all good if you are having fun! I mean that.

For my personal tastes and experience though, the "yes and..." makes the game more fun for everyone.

Ok, I accept that this might not be the case for everyone, but I suggest giving it a serious try.

I feel it's good roleplaying for players to try to find a creative way around their dump stat, I'm surprised there's vitriol around the process. I suppose it's okay to craft egalitarian characters but I've always found characters with flaws to be more interesting.

One of the reasons I wish Humans could drop a stat to 1.

I feel it's good roleplaying for players to try to find a creative way around their dump stat, I'm surprised there's vitriol around the process. I suppose it's okay to craft egalitarian characters but I've always found characters with flaws to be more interesting.

One of the reasons I wish Humans could drop a stat to 1.

Then just do it! Ask your gm if you can and go for it. If you are the gm, just say that you can reduce a stat to 1 (and take on 20xp?).

Just because the standard stats for player characters of a species are what we see in the books, does not mean it has to be like that for every member of that species! We see that for published product npc`s and premades.

The standard numbers are just guidelines for player characters to emulate that species in a simple form. If you want to play a little kid or someone very weak, just have brawn be 1 if the gm approves. Or you can keep it at 2 and just flavour it.

I'm trying to give more checks with multiple resolutions so players can show off their stats.

Simple example: You have to cross a gap between rooftops. There is a 2x4 board spanning it - Average Coordination OR you can try to jump the gap using Athletics but it's Hard w/ an Upgrade

If they focused on Coordination or neither stat, they shouldn't have much trouble. But if they're a Brawny Athletics hog and they want to crack their knuckles and go for the jump, they can certainly give it a try.

But it's also fun for characters to comically flail their way through a check in their dump stat, primarily social checks. My table gets a kick out of it, especially since there's no Charm focused character. Our Face is all Deception.

I feel it's good roleplaying for players to try to find a creative way around their dump stat, I'm surprised there's vitriol around the process. I suppose it's okay to craft egalitarian characters but I've always found characters with flaws to be more interesting.

One of the reasons I wish Humans could drop a stat to 1.

Then just do it! Ask your gm if you can and go for it. If you are the gm, just say that you can reduce a stat to 1 (and take on 20xp?).

Being a perma-GM (except now one PbP) I'd allow it and give the 20XP, but only if they didn't drop a 5 into their favoured stat right away.

In the PbP I'm playing a Weequay, partly because they start at Intellect 1. I've always played mages/druids/thieves, nice to finally play a thug

I feel it's good roleplaying for players to try to find a creative way around their dump stat, I'm surprised there's vitriol around the process. I suppose it's okay to craft egalitarian characters but I've always found characters with flaws to be more interesting.

One of the reasons I wish Humans could drop a stat to 1.

Then just do it! Ask your gm if you can and go for it. If you are the gm, just say that you can reduce a stat to 1 (and take on 20xp?).

Being a perma-GM (except now one PbP) I'd allow it and give the 20XP, but only if they didn't drop a 5 into their favoured stat right away.

In the PbP I'm playing a Weequay, partly because they start at Intellect 1. I've always played mages/druids/thieves, nice to finally play a thug

With extra xp for obligation, a human can already take 5 in one charactaristic during character creation. Maybe you could say that you can drop to 1 is a chareacteristic and tak 20 extra xp for +5 obligation or something?

I actually have a houserule allowing a PC to drop one Characteristic one point below starting racial value (with my approval); with an XP return equal to what it would cost to increase it in the opposite direction. I would not allow a character to start with a value of 5 in anything (I don't use Obligation; so that's not a factor).

You don't use obligation??

But that is the best part of this game, besides narrative dice!..

*Nerd freakout*

Oh, well... Carry on..

I keep meaning to use Obligation more, but my players do a better job of pushing the story in interesting ways than I could. I always have their Obligations to fall back on, but I rarely need to rely on it.

You don't use obligation??

But that is the best part of this game, besides narrative dice!..

*Nerd freakout*

Oh, well... Carry on..

I just prefer to decide for myself when it's time for a PC's past to come back to haunt them.

You don't use obligation??

But that is the best part of this game, besides narrative dice!..

*Nerd freakout*

Oh, well... Carry on..

Obligation is useless to me past chargen. I'm playing an RPG, not a board game.

Obligations have a lot value in terms of roleplaying and storytelling! The more bonus you take from it, the bigger chance your obligation will show up and directly affect you in a session. I Base alot of preparation and story elements on it and it enriches the rp more than anything. I use it as a currency in the narrative sense too. It is the most interesting aspect of the game to me and I use it for all it is worth. Just as narrative and story focused as narrative dice. Not board-gamey at all!

Haven't posted in this conversation for a bit.

Myself and the 25 players in my 5 groups are fairly new to RPG's. Some have played others or even Edge of the Empire with other groups in the past. It's all a learning experience for us and I try my best to keep an open communication with my players about things. If they have any issues, I want to know so we can find a way to work things out and make it fun for everyone.

An example of that being one player and myself feeling frustration due to a couple disruptive teenage players. They come to my home and when things don't go their way they shout and the other players, increasing in volume over time. We've only had 3 sessions with their group and after this 3rd go, after several instances of myself telling them outside of the game and at the table they need to keep calm, my frustration was hitting its breaking point. I remained calm on the outside about it and I was planning to discuss it with the other players in the group to see if they were bothered by it. I didn't have to, when a player informed me that night that he is super frustrated about it. We talked it out and I asked some of the others what their thoughts were. We were all in agreement that there needs to be a rule established about it, things have gotten out of hand. The beginning of the next session, I will address the entire group about yelling at others and about players telling other players "no you can't do that". If it disrupts the game any more, we will end early and the offending players won't be invited back.

That is of course, an extreme case of things. I've been in communication with the players and told them numerous times to stop but it's getting to the point that everyone else in the group is affected by it so the houserules are being set. No yelling in my house, no shouting at others, disrupting the game for 15 minutes at a time, no telling other players what they can and can't do.

In terms of the "yes and" or "no" discussion, due to everyone being a little green still, often players do not understand their advantages or triumphs need to be in relation to the action they just took, so their suggestions do not make sense and I tell them to think of something that fits with their actions or I will suggest something myself.

There's been some times when I have said no to players. Most recently a player wanted to get a boost die on a knowledge roll because "his species is intelligent". I said please continue to come up with ideas for getting boost dice but they have to make sense for me to allow it. Just because your species is intelligent does not mean that you are, as there are exceptions to rules. Look at Jar Jar Binks... he was the black sheep of his species because he was an idiot.

The triumphs and advantages do not have to directly be tied to the action.

The triumphs and advantages do not have to directly be tied to the action.

In a way, they kinda do have to be tied into that specific action they came from. Your action taken, whether a success or failure, resulted in advantages and possibly even triumphs. Sure, you shot at the badguy but no shots connected with him. However, it gave time for a friendly to get a better shot on him and so the advantage is that they gain some boost to their attack and gave you a moment to catch your breath in the encounter by way of recovering some strain (advantages). Your triumph was that you blew apart the wooden crate he was hiding behind, negating the setback to attack him at range completely.

If it were a player who missed and got advantages & a triumph, would you really allow them to say that the advantages are that they gain a better understanding of the intricate language of Twi'leks when those advantages come from an attack roll? Similarly, would you allow a player to spend their triumph to spot a hidden wall safe behind them when that triumph came from a resilience check to resist poison?*

The two examples just above are similar to the ideas some of my players come up with. They have absolutely nothing in relation to the action they just took and would fall under different skill checks (understanding the language probably being education or xenology and spotting the safe behind them would be perception or maybe even vigilance).

*Not exact scenarios but similar to what some players have come up with. When I ask them for it to make more sense according to the current action taking place, they usually have an idea that works out well. Sometimes I provide alternative suggestions but let them decide to take those or come up with something that better fits.*

As far as Obligation goes, it has been fantastic using it. I started out trying to come up with stuff to surprise the player whose Obligation was rolled but I've come to learn that it's better to work together on the story they want to tell. I come up with some ideas and they can feel free to use them but it's all up to them in the end. Players are starting to better understand the difference between player knowledge and character knowledge and how to separate them, especially when we start collaborating on these Obligations together. It's definitely gotten them more excited in the story itself and gotten me more excited at running the games.

They even want me to re-roll to land their Obligation if it doesn't land on anyone's. I sometimes do enjoy the break between them though, as integrating another layer adds more work into my preparation.

Currently reading throught my newly acquired copy of FaD so I can better understand Morality and how to use it.

A triumph could be tied to the story as a whole too, that can be both fun and rewarding if you are creative and loose with it.

A triumph could be tied to the story as a whole too, that can be both fun and rewarding if you are creative and loose with it.

To an extent, I agree.

Han being blind and missing a Coordination check but landing a Triumph resulting in Boba Fett getting hit and falling into the Sarlacc Pit made sense because Boba was behind him and Han was holding a huge staff attempting to maintain his footing while looking around.

Again though, it has to make sense in the current situation. Random off the wall ideas that don't pertain to what's going on can get out of hand if the players notice you allow just about anything to happen even if it's not pertaining to the situation.

Triumph: Boba was really hung-over that day...