Hi, this morning i reread parts of the Crafting section in the Special Modifications book, and something that i read suddenly made me doubt if the interpretation of the rules we've always used were correct or not, so i figured i'd ask here.

How we've done it so far:

Roll the die, add/sum up the successes/failures, and the advantages/threats, and then you're left with a result: Example. Lets say you roll 3 successes, 4 advantages, 2 failures and 2 threats. The end result would be: 1 Success, 2 Advantages.

And then you spend the 2 advantages on whatever you want on the crafting tables....

However, when i reread "Step 3" on page 75, it says the following: "The relevant tables on pages 76-86 include suggestions on how to integrate other results into construction.

First, crafters can use Advantages and Triumph results to make improvements to the item. Then , the GM can spend threats and dispairs to add flaws.

Unless a limit is specified, an option from these tables may be selected any number of times, and its effects stack.

So, suddenly i'm in doubt... in the die-example above, should the result be: 1 Success + 2 Advantages, or should it be: 1 Success + 4 Advantages + 2 Threats.

It was either an oversight or an assumption on the parts of the developers, but, as written, a crafting check is treated as a normal skill check, thus, 1 success, 2 advantage.

They did say that it wouldn't be breaking to try the other alternative, so you could play around if you like.

I've been contemplating on letting the PC choose; before the dice roll, of course.

Like BB888 said, this has been asked of the developers a few times. Your original interpretation of the crafting rules is correct. House rules, such as the one you have suggested, come up everyone once in a while as a way to put more variety and variance into crafting. If you are interested in find out more, I would suggest listening to the Order 66 podcast for Special Modifications. The Devs were on that episode and discuss your topic a bit.

Thanks for the answers/replies!

And my apologies for not having used the search function properly before posting :-)

Seeing how many hoops it takes to jump through when using the site search engine, it's easier to just ask the question.

The house rule I use is that the player may spend advantage to reduce threat incrementally. This means that they could have the final results include the advantage and two threat. This allows them to get the specific feature they want, rather then scrapping the entire project -and encourages the mindset that scratch built items will frequently not meet the design standards embraced by engineering teams iterating many times over multiple years to produce a retail-quality product.

IMO, this is just to reiterate that the acting party generally spends the good stuff first before the opposing party spends the bad stuff. This isn't spelled out in the skills chapter (IIRC) but it is RAW for combat checks (which kinda sets a precedent) via step 4 being before step 5.

(Ofc I rarely enforce this, but it is technically true)

On 4/13/2017 at 7:08 AM, Gelanin said:

in the die-example above, should the result be: 1 Success + 2 Advantages, or should it be: 1 Success + 4 Advantages + 2 Threats.

As mentioned, and ORDER 66 Podcast episode had a Dev saying that this is how you could rule it.

Per my own players' request, it's how we run things in my game, and we love it. We've blown literal hours playing around with the wacky results you can get.

And, as in most things in this game, the player benefits are noticeably more powerful than the contrasting GM benefits, so if anything this is an OVERpowered way to do it.