How should GMs portray NPCs' reactions to failed opposing checks? Would they know they failed a check and why? A nd how would their behavior change?

So here's the situation: I was running our EotE group through a D20 radio adventure the other night. For spoilers sake, we'll just refer to at "DMH" (wink and nod to GM Chris).

The crew's YT-1300 was jumped by three experimental TIE fighters flown by Imperial test pilots - I used the Rival TIE pilot card from the Adversary deck (Agility 4, Pilot 2, Gunnery 2).

After a couple of exchanges of fire, the crew's pilot (Agility 5, Pilot 3) used his 25xp "Brilliant Evasion" talent which calls for an Opposed Check against 1 opponent to "stop [the] opponent from attacking [the] character" for a number of rounds equal to the PC's Agility.

The PC's roll succeeded. When it came time for that TIE pilot's turn, I ruled that as an experienced pilot (you don't get to Rival level flying TIEs without some skill or luck), the TIE pilot realized that he was facing a much better pilot. With no other enemies to engage, he broke off the dogfight and flew away (fly maneuver) well beyond the range of the freighter's guns, activating a special ship mod as he did so (another pilot maneuver, taking 2 system strain). I had him remain outside of the next five rounds of combat - narratively he was observing the freighter to better judge his chances - before flying back into gun range after the fifth round... when he was promptly vaporized after his shot missed.

BUT: The PC pilot cried foul. In his mind, the enemy pilot could not have known that he was facing a better pilot, and should have remained in the dogfight to TRY to (futilely) attack the freighter. Essentially: surrendering his action every round to commit "suicide by PC."

So my questions for other GMs:

(1) HOW would you have played out the TIE pilot's reaction?
(2) WHY would the TIE pilot react the way you propose?

- GM Khyrith

Wait he succeeded in a roll making that TIE Fighter not attacking for a number of rounds, which it does then after that expires it returns trying to strafe them and its promptly blown up... what's the problem?

He faced a decent adversary and he protested because they were that good?

What you described sounded fine.

I'm not seeing an issue, as the scenario sounds well adjudicated.

An experienced pilot wouldn't abandon his wingmen to their deaths.

Did the TIE pilot attack the character's ship while the ability was active? No? Then he got what it said on the tin. Nowhere in the talent description does it say that the opponent has to stick around and get shot at for X rounds with no chance of fighting back.

Here's what we had to say about this on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/swrpg/comments/537iov/npc_reaction_awareness_of_opposed_checks/

An experienced pilot wouldn't abandon his wingmen to their deaths.

This was the thing I had a problem with. I don't have a problem with a GM saying his NPCs can sense someone better than them at a task.

Did the TIE pilot attack the character's ship while the ability was active? No? Then he got what it said on the tin. Nowhere in the talent description does it say that the opponent has to stick around and get shot at for X rounds with no chance of fighting back.

Nothing says he can't perform other actions to assist his squad, anything that passes along a Boost is worthwhile.

The player is being a princess. He got what he wanted after all. I get the part about the wingman, but in that case you could have pulled *all* the NPCs back ( and really watch the player howl...)

I'm possibly reading too much into this, but this kind of complaint scenario could come about in a few ways:

1. the player wants his character to rack up some kills, and having several rounds of free shooting helps ensure that. It's possibly the reason they took the Talent in the first place, and they might feel they aren't getting their XP-value from it.

2. the encounter doesn't have enough goals beyond "kill the opposition", and there was no reward for fleeing early.

If the player feels their Talent is wasted, then it's up to the GM to demonstrate the value. You can play your NPCs as smart as you like, but the Talent could still provide boosts...maybe they can now escape unharassed (keeping Hull points they'd otherwise have to spend 500cr each on); or the breathing room gives the navigator time to refine their hyperspace coordinates so they get some advantage on the other end; or they get the medical supplies to the infected planet earlier than planned, saving even more lives; or...

I don't think there was anything the OP did technically wrong, the error is that they're playing the NPCs like pieces in a tactical mini game and not a narrative RPG. Good tactics in a mini game says that's the way to use the movement and game rules to counter the PCs actions. Playing the game like how actual pilots would behave when their comrades are in mortal danger, and how fighter pilots actually work is completely different imo. The fault isn't one of rules it's divesting the NPCs actions from any sort of 'human' element and treating the encounter like a math equation.

Remember this key phrase: "Bad guy values."

The pilot's "experience" is that they live to fly another day because they're willing to leave their wingmates to die. The best way to survive a bear attack is to run faster than the other guy, and all that.

Or they were primarily test pilots, and not in the habit of using standard tactics or protocol. Got to protect that prototype, after all.

It sounds like the player missed another key component of his Signature Ability. What did he do narratively? Sometimes you can shoot a blaster and just say, "Okay, I hit for 7 damage and, uh, I just pass a boost die." It's a little boring, but not every roll has to be something super creative. But this is a once-per-session super skill! I don't wanna hear, "Anndd... okay, I made it. They can't shoot at me for five rounds." Tell me what you did. Did you fly into an asteroid field because they'd be crazy to follow you? Did you try spinning? That's a good trick. Did you drop down into a planet's thermosphere, or fire off an anti-missile flare straight into the pursuer to screw up his sensors?

Also, why do you need to fight it out? What, are you going to check the bodies for 1d8 gold pieces each? Five rounds should be plenty of time for the pilot to say, "Hey, Dave. While I'm juking between these asteroids at breakneck speeds, and the space cops are back there trying to vaporize us into... vapor... would you mind hopping on the navicomputer and finding us a way to a safe port? If there's a Starbucks on the way, that would be cool, but whatever."

My main problem with the scenario as represented is that TIE pilots *are* suicide pilots. They are flying around, without shields (or even much fuselage!) to get in between them and enemy fire. They are transparisteel cannons that usually attack en masse. They are brainwashed to be "brave" and to fight to the death. I have a problem with a TIE pilot retreating, specifically. So in that instance, yeah, I would have had the rival pilot shore up his squad's defenses somehow, and be a leader from the front like TIE pilots are meant to be.

As to the player-GM dynamic, I would just be careful of making a player feel like he wasted an XP purchase. It sounds like the player feels like he's getting screwed over. That simply requires a conversation, outside the game, between the player and the GM to see what the GM can do to rectify the situation. Perhaps the ability isn't working like the player hoped, and he'd like to re-spend the XP elsewhere. Perhaps other in-game expectation aren't being met, and the frustration only came out in this specific situation.

In any case, plentiful communication is gonna go a long way towards smoothing things over. I wouldn't focus on "who is right" (after all, you're the GM, and you decide what is reasonable in your game) but rather how you can help your players have a better time at the gaming table.

If I was the PC I would've just countered by saying OK, I am chasing sissy pants, so the chase rules are in effect and you aren't allowed to use Maneuvers to change range bands and have to beat me on the opposed Pilot roll to do that.

Just pondering:

What if the TIE had stayed? Would the PCs have ignored him for four rounds, killing him in the fifth? Would that not qualify as meta-gaming? How is the PC to know the exact moment their advantage disappears?

An experienced pilot wouldn't abandon his wingmen to their deaths.

Well, after recognition of his being outmanoeuvred, he might choose to "regroup", might he not?

Or, he might have broken and fled. Rallying after a few minutes of reflexion on legal issues as "desertion in face of the enemy".

Just pondering:

What if the TIE had stayed? Would the PCs have ignored him for four rounds, killing him in the fifth? Would that not qualify as meta-gaming? How is the PC to know the exact moment their advantage disappears?

An experienced pilot wouldn't abandon his wingmen to their deaths.

Well, after recognition of his being outmanoeuvred, he might choose to "regroup", might he not?

Or, he might have broken and fled. Rallying after a few minutes of reflexion on legal issues as "desertion in face of the enemy".

Not a star test pilot. Besides rationalizing something outside what would actually be more likely is meta gaming.

The player is being a princess.

There are better insults to get your point across. Especially in Star Wars. Princesses are strong-willed women of action, not what you're implying.

I agree with what's been said before, it's totally fine for an NPC to realize that they're outmatched and react accordingly. But you do have to consider that the character's reaction should be tempered by their thoughts and feelings, not just tactical optimization. I think having the pilot stay and assist the other attacks would have been reasonable, or heck, it's a Signature ability, that pilot could have called off the attack and pulled all of the fighters off to regroup and reassess their strategy. I'm totally in favour of PCs sometimes impressing NPCs into submission, even in situations where they don't have the mechanical advantage.

Just pondering:

What if the TIE had stayed? Would the PCs have ignored him for four rounds, killing him in the fifth? Would that not qualify as meta-gaming? How is the PC to know the exact moment their advantage disappears?

I can't imagine my PCs ignoring a target for 4 rounds,but I could see them firing on the vessels firing on them first.

Just pondering:

What if the TIE had stayed? Would the PCs have ignored him for four rounds, killing him in the fifth? Would that not qualify as meta-gaming? How is the PC to know the exact moment their advantage disappears?

An experienced pilot wouldn't abandon his wingmen to their deaths.

Well, after recognition of his being outmanoeuvred, he might choose to "regroup", might he not?

Or, he might have broken and fled. Rallying after a few minutes of reflexion on legal issues as "desertion in face of the enemy".

Not a star test pilot. Besides rationalizing something outside what would actually be more likely is meta gaming.

Rationalizing was never my intent. Rather sketching out a couple of the countless possibilities to narrate a given situation, structured by the rules and defined by the outcome of a dice roll.

"Not abandoning his wingmen to their deaths" is just one of many viable interprations of how a particular pilot might react. So are the examples I have granted. Some may seem more plausible than others to some. But, you can never outright rule out one outcome when a human mind has to decide in split-second in a stressful situation.

Strange things happen in space.

I don't wanna hear, "Anndd... okay, I made it. They can't shoot at me for five rounds." Tell me what you did.

This is a huge point, and hearkens back to what 2P51 was saying about a tactical minis game versus a narrative RPG. The "how" of the Signature Ability is what's missing here. It's not enough to just say "he can't attack for 5 rounds" even if that is the mechanical effect. If it was enough to cause a trained TIE pilot to break formation, abandon his fellows, and sit around while they get destroyed, I need to hear a good explanation.

Yes, thematics matter in a system like this: the opponent isn't going to narratively experience the "I can't attack," effect but rather a "****, missed again!" scenario (or, if they're given to wearing ominous black outfits, "The Force is strong in this one..."), and their response should be appropriate to that.

If the guy was a test pilot flying an experimental craft he might very naturally have reasoned that his primary task was to keep the prototype from being destroyed.

If you want to showcase the usefulness of Brilliant Evasion, have your players come up against a large, well-armed ship with several TIEs (or other small ships) as an escort. 5 rounds of not taking fire from a Star Destroyer is going to make everyone really grateful, believe me.

If the guy was a test pilot flying an experimental craft he might very naturally have reasoned that his primary task was to keep the prototype from being destroyed.

While his team in identical fighters are left to rot? Now, I may not be Sun Tzu, but that just doesn't sound like military training to me, even Imperial military training.

If the guy was a test pilot flying an experimental craft he might very naturally have reasoned that his primary task was to keep the prototype from being destroyed.

If you want to showcase the usefulness of Brilliant Evasion, have your players come up against a large, well-armed ship with several TIEs (or other small ships) as an escort. 5 rounds of not taking fire from a Star Destroyer is going to make everyone really grateful, believe me.

If you're concerned with the prototype being destroyed you wouldn't fly it into combat.

If the guy was a test pilot flying an experimental craft he might very naturally have reasoned that his primary task was to keep the prototype from being destroyed.

If you want to showcase the usefulness of Brilliant Evasion, have your players come up against a large, well-armed ship with several TIEs (or other small ships) as an escort. 5 rounds of not taking fire from a Star Destroyer is going to make everyone really grateful, believe me.

If you're concerned with the prototype being destroyed you wouldn't fly it into combat.

Having seen typical players, maybe the combat flew to the fighter?