This isn't a new conversation but FFG SW has been in public hands long enough for it to be revisited.

What PCs should be provided on a failed knowledge roll, as well as how that knowledge roll is handled, is a hotly debated topic in the tabletop RPG sphere. As I see it, there are two options.

Option 1 - The GM rolls the dice in secret. The result falls along the lines of:

• The PC gets information and its accurate
• The PC gets information but it's inaccurate (or a complete falsehood)
• The PC knows nothing

Since the players don't know what the dice results are, it's a matter of trusting or distrusting what the GM says and playing up subtle or not-so-subtle words to confuse the matter. Such as, "you're pretty sure..." or "you're very sure..."

The pro side to this approach is that it forces players to do what their characters would do, which avoids (unintentional) metagaming. The con side is that it requires 100% trust between the players and the GM - I've never played with a GM who I trust 100% to not fudge things for or against me - and it takes away some player agency by removing their capacity to roll dice.

Option 2 - The players roll the dice in public. Looking at the dice, the players instantly know if they have the information at hand. The side effect is that players will never act on bad information provided from a knowledge check.

I think FFG SW's success/failure/advantage/disadvantage system provides an option for some subtle cruelty on behalf of the GM. On a success, the following happens:

• If a PC succeeds without advantage he gets the basic info he needs.
• If he succeeds with advantage (or Triumph) he gets extra details or all extra details that helps the clue make sense.

Makes sense, right? This is what the books and the adventure scenarios encourage. But what about failures and disadvantages? Here's what I'm thinking about:

• On a failure that's a complete wash, the PC doesn't know anything. The GM tells the player, "You don't know."
• On a success but with net disadvantages, the PC gets the clue that's needed to keep the story moving but the GM introduces a few extra details that are inaccurate. "You know that Jabba the Hutt's palace is near Mos Eisley. You also know that Jabba prefers to use Jawas as his personal guard." The clue gets the PCs to the palace, which keeps the story moving, but they end up packing Jawa repellent rather than Gamorrean Guard Be Gone ^TM spray.
• On a failure with disadvantage (or Despair) the PCs get two (or more) clues. One is the truth and one is complete fiction and it's up to the PCs to spend the time and resources to investigate both. Perhaps if Despair is rolled, the fiction is an incredibly dangerous fiction. "You hear that lightsaber crystals can be made from krayt dragon pearls and Jabba the Hutt's kidney stones."

The trick is to present both the truth and the lie (or lies) as equally plausible with equal returns on investment for pursuing. Any thoughts?

I like the approach of giving two answers, one true and one false (but plausible). This means no metagaming and no trust issues with the GM, but still provides uncertainty. Most likely the players will try to cover both possibilities where possible and the false answer probably needs to be sculpted to try to avoid this or it takes the sting away from picking the wrong door to open.

What I've been doing is rolling the difficulty dice behind my screen while having the players roll their ability dice. This way they at least have an idea of how likely they are to be successful, but just unsure enough to doubt themselves. If it's an overwhelming success I'll be sure to use language that makes it clear that their character knows the information. But like you said, players won't act on a bad knowledge check, so I like to keep the difficulty dice behind the screen so it's easier to sell misinformation or flat out lies to them on a failed check. I treat perception checks the same way, if they know they failed, they'll be worried about what they missed. So just give them some small inconsequential detail about the environment if they fail to keep them moving along.

What I've been doing is rolling the difficulty dice behind my screen while having the players roll their ability dice. This way they at least have an idea of how likely they are to be successful, but just unsure enough to doubt themselves. If it's an overwhelming success I'll be sure to use language that makes it clear that their character knows the information. But like you said, players won't act on a bad knowledge check, so I like to keep the difficulty dice behind the screen so it's easier to sell misinformation or flat out lies to them on a failed check. I treat perception checks the same way, if they know they failed, they'll be worried about what they missed. So just give them some small inconsequential detail about the environment if they fail to keep them moving along.

Another option for that whole "What did I miss?" on failed perception checks: have them randomly roll perception checks when it's not needed, and give them eye-catching, but extraneous information as a result of successes.

What I've been doing is rolling the difficulty dice behind my screen while having the players roll their ability dice.

Just MHO, but I think this removes player agency. I've had zero issues rolling everything openly, and I think it leads to a more creative approach. It forces the GM to be more flexible with the concept of what exactly "valid information" is. In short, I think it's a mistake to have a kind of check list of items the players have to determine. Dynamic information, ones that derive from how the story is moving, and especially those that derive from the players themselves, are far more interesting. I like the OPs formalized "give 2 clues, one is bad" approach to failure...I realized I'd been doing something like this subconsciously. But I'm also happy to let the players come up with relevant information that they can then pursue.

An old post, but might be relevant:

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/198079-rolling-openly/

Also, running an adaptable plot lets the players define the clues through their own actions:

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/188406-running-a-freeform-plot/

I think ultimately the trick is don't tie the use of Threat and Despair in a completely literal direct cause/effect relationship to the roll.

Failure with Disadvantages could simply mean the PC failed and also wasted extra time in the process.

A Despair on a failure, or even a success, need not be simply falsehoods or bad information, it might mean the intended bad guy has an elaborate holonet security team that noticed someone researching them and who that someone is. It could mean the PC doing the research flagged themselves in holonet cyber space and triggered their own Obligation.

Bottom line is the roll should have a scaling amount of information based on success and how successful, and failure should incorporate more than just bad information imo.

In addition don't create plot choke points. If you make the path forward in the story contingent on a successful roll, you've created a plot choke point and are setting yourself up for failure. The PCs should have a baseline of information for moving forward without the check being successful.

We're big fans of player agency at our table... don't just tell the players when the dice go bad... ask them.

Wow... you succeeded, but with 4 disadvantages. Your research gives you the answers you were looking for, but takes twice as long as you thought it was going to, and... lets come up with two more disadvantages.

OK - how about we somehow tweak the attention of the local authorities?

Yeah... OK.

While you're heading back to the ship, you notice a pair of Storm troopers giving you a stare-down. Their sergeant appears to be calling something in from behind them...

And... go.

What I've been doing is rolling the difficulty dice behind my screen while having the players roll their ability dice.

Just MHO, but I think this removes player agency. I've had zero issues rolling everything openly, and I think it leads to a more creative approach. It forces the GM to be more flexible with the concept of what exactly "valid information" is. In short, I think it's a mistake to have a kind of check list of items the players have to determine. Dynamic information, ones that derive from how the story is moving, and especially those that derive from the players themselves, are far more interesting. I like the OPs formalized "give 2 clues, one is bad" approach to failure...I realized I'd been doing something like this subconsciously. But I'm also happy to let the players come up with relevant information that they can then pursue.

I understand, that's a totally fair way of doing things and I might give it a try during one of our games this weekend, it sounds like a lot of fun assuming I can handle it (I'm still a baby GM). Though the way I've been looking at it, is that the characters would have no idea whether or not they failed to notice something/if they're misremembering information, and all of the players I've tried open rolls with end up metagaming and being overly cautious when they see it's a failed roll. An example of why I like to use the screen, would be when a player rolled a despair when he was trying to hack a door on the ISB agent Eren Garai's ship. I decided it meant that a virus had installed itself onto his slicing gear, and that the player would be able to make one or two perception/computer checks per session to see if he notices. I'm a fan of having things going on behind the scenes, and it makes for a good excuse if there's ever a dramatic time for imperials to drop in on them. For me, it's easier to make it a total surprise when he finally does discover it since he has no idea a Despair came up in the first place.

Failure with Disadvantages could simply mean the PC failed and also wasted extra time in the process.

Sure, and that's the de facto approach. But I've also found that, unless the PCs are operating with an actual time restriction, it doesn't hurt much. I suppose a GM could ding a party's pool of credits to represent wasted gas but that encourages a Starships & Economies approach that I'd prefer to avoid in a narrative game. Unless I'm playing Traveller: Star Wars Edition .

A Despair on a failure, or even a success, need not be simply falsehoods or bad information, it might mean the intended bad guy has an elaborate holonet security team that noticed someone researching them and who that someone is. It could mean the PC doing the research flagged themselves in holonet cyber space and triggered their own Obligation.

If you view the HoloNet as an Internet analog, sure. I view it as space-fantasy cable TV and video telephone. But even if the PC is using a research terminal, that's less a Knowledge Check (Underworld, Outer Rim et. all) than a Computers roll; assuming a roll is even needed. It's the difference between a player character knowing something off-hand rather than actually committing to an action to learn about it, like Streetwise.

Bottom line is the roll should have a scaling amount of information based on success and how successful, and failure should incorporate more than just bad information imo.

I think it can, if it fits the story, but it's also a reality of RPGs that knowledge checks are, essentially, passive intelligence gathering. I don't think I could justify bounty hunters cutting through the hull of my PC's ships because the Scholar "forgot" that Chandrila's primary export is high-end produce.

In addition don't create plot choke points. If you make the path forward in the story contingent on a successful roll, you've created a plot choke point and are setting yourself up for failure. The PCs should have a baseline of information for moving forward without the check being successful.

I think a lot depends on your players. I’ve been fortunate that the guys I game with are very much into role-playing the dice rolls they get, and so when they clearly fail their roll and the GM tells them something, they take it and run with it — wherever that might lead them.

I do like asking the players to get creative in describing their failures and how they pass on boost dice. And I will give them a positive incentive (like more boost dice), if they can entertain me with their description.

So, no — I don’t like rolling dice in secret. Not just because it takes away player agency, but also because it can encourage me to take cheap shortcuts that will not serve me well in the long-run.

Though the way I've been looking at it, is that the characters would have no idea whether or not they failed to notice something/if they're misremembering information, and all of the players I've tried open rolls with end up metagaming and being overly cautious when they see it's a failed roll.

I'd say this is mostly an illusion. The flip side is that the character "knows things" that the player won't know, and there is simply no way to impart everything the character knows to the player because in an abstract way, the character has a "full life" inside the universe that the player can never really access. So there is already an imbalance, which isn't corrected by extra restrictions. It is true that a player can try to meta-game a situation, but the trick is to try and give information that can't really be leveraged that way, and/or to not be too fussed about it when they do. This goes back to the other post linked above where my plots are somewhat freeform. I have NPCs with motivations and a clock, but I just don't sweat the details until they are relevant. An NPC might have "a bodyguard", but I don't care whether that bodyguard is a platoon of stormtroopers or one twin-vibroblade-wielding maniac until the showdown becomes important.

An example of why I like to use the screen, would be when a player rolled a despair when he was trying to hack a door on the ISB agent Eren Garai's ship. I decided it meant that a virus had installed itself onto his slicing gear, and that the player would be able to make one or two perception/computer checks per session to see if he notices. I'm a fan of having things going on behind the scenes, and it makes for a good excuse if there's ever a dramatic time for imperials to drop in on them. For me, it's easier to make it a total surprise when he finally does discover it since he has no idea a Despair came up in the first place.

To play devil's advocate: why bother? The player doesn't really know if you rolled a despair or not. You could say you did, but didn't; or maybe you did, but you don't want to use it.

It's very old-school to hide the results. We used to do it with D&D all the time (it's how I was taught), and the *only* reason to do so is to control the outcome, because in all honesty, randomness sucks when you're trying to tell a story that involves climactic moments. You want the boss fight to give a challenge, but usually you didn't want a TPK. There was an unspoken understanding that you just trusted the GM and that "omg, a critical" was a real die result...even if it probably wasn't.

But these dice don't require that kind of obfuscation anymore. The narrative dice give a lot to work with, and the system's lethality is quite low. The last holdout for total transparency is the "withholding of character knowledge", but it really isn't useful at all if you a) approach it from a different point of view and b) trust the players to come up with something interesting of their own.

This goes back to the other post linked above where my plots are somewhat freeform. I have NPCs with motivations and a clock, but I just don't sweat the details until they are relevant. An NPC might have "a bodyguard", but I don't care whether that bodyguard is a platoon of stormtroopers or one twin-vibroblade-wielding maniac until the showdown becomes important.

What you've described is the platonic ideal of game mastering. It's also a slow and somewhat difficult goal to achieve. Many people can give off-the-cuff speeches but others are only comfortable if they have notes they can reference. I'm notes heavy both because I like to do research before game time and if I have a brain fart I have something I can reference.

My Star Wars games are very influenced by the same film genres that Lucas ripped off and I (attempt) to emulate the pacing of SW films and TV shows. I wouldn't be terribly comfortable trying to ad-lib my way through that so I tend to put a lot of thought into my notes. Players are welcome to go off the rails and are encouraged to chip in ideas during play but I've often found they're more comfortable if there's a sense of forward narrative motion, even if it's an illusion, and consistency with dice interpretation.