Hi all

I put together this flow-chart about adjudicating actions - basically, outlining when a check is required and when it isn't. It's written specifically with SWRPG in mind, although I guess it could pretty much apply to any RPG; it doesn't (yet) include much at all about Advantage/Threat/Triumph/Despair, just Success vs Failure.

I pretty much wrote it as a mental exercise for myself, to clarify my process in my head, rather than as something to actually have at the gaming table, but I figured I'd post it here to get some feedback - sure I've missed something out or written something incredibly daft somewhere in there!

Thanks in advance.

I'm always interested in thought exercises like this, and I commend your putting your thinking into writing on this. Lots of games / game design theorists have thoughts about how you know "when to roll"; it's an interesting design question.

That said, what jumps out to me is that the first intersection on the flowchart contravenes pages 17-18 of the EotE core book. There literally is an allowance for "impossibly" difficult actions.

While totally right that there is an allowance for impossible actions, it's also up to the GM to grant the option to roll at all. If the GM thinks it isn't or doesn't want it to be possible, they can not allow a roll.

On topic: Cool work, i know i've thought through the same stuff a few times which could've been averted if I'd written it down. The worst is remembering a conclusion but not remembering -why- i came to that conclusion.

Would you file something like, "I use foresee until I get a white pip" under having a time limit and use the first option in your explaination box of roll once? (That's advice I've seen around and agree with, just wondering if that's where it fits in your chart for you.)

This varies from game to game, but don't forget that in Star Wars, you don't roll for routine checks, either. So, say, if your PCs are driving a landspeeder to work in typical traffic, you don't need a Piloting (Planetary) check. Per your flowchart, you'd require a roll, since theoretically they could get into an accident, run late for work, or something of that nature.

2 hours ago, BrickSteelhead said:

I'm always interested in thought exercises like this, and I commend your putting your thinking into writing on this. Lots of games / game design theorists have thoughts about how you know "when to roll"; it's an interesting design question.

That said, what jumps out to me is that the first intersection on the flowchart contravenes pages 17-18 of the EotE core book. There literally is an allowance for "impossibly" difficult actions.

So, that is true...it's just that those are, by definition, not actually impossible. I understand why they've been labelled as such, but since the PCs can actually achieve them, that would be a "No" to the first question.

1 hour ago, Hinklemar said:

While totally right that there is an allowance for impossible actions, it's also up to the GM to grant the option to roll at all. If the GM thinks it isn't or doesn't want it to be possible, they can not allow a roll.

On topic: Cool work, i know i've thought through the same stuff a few times which could've been averted if I'd written it down. The worst is remembering a conclusion but not remembering -why- i came to that conclusion.

Would you file something like, "I use foresee until I get a white pip" under having a time limit and use the first option in your explaination box of roll once? (That's advice I've seen around and agree with, just wondering if that's where it fits in your chart for you.)

Force Powers is interesting, actually...and probably definitely somewhere where I've broken my own rules. Foresee, at least, does have a fairly in-built time limit. What's sort of interesting about Force Powers is that they succeed by default anyway...I'll have to think about this. Good point.

1 hour ago, SavageBob said:

This varies from game to game, but don't forget that in Star Wars, you don't roll for routine checks, either. So, say, if your PCs are driving a landspeeder to work in typical traffic, you don't need a Piloting (Planetary) check. Per your flowchart, you'd require a roll, since theoretically they could get into an accident, run late for work, or something of that nature.

I guess this is technically true based on the chart. Maybe I need to add the word "meaningful" before the word "action", and perhaps "significant" in front of "time limit".

Also consider the fact that the final choice begins with the word "will", not the word "could". If it had begun with "could", then a standard landspeeder-driving action would require a check...because an accident "could" theoretically happen. It's within the realms of possibility. But since it says "will", it's up to the GM whether an accident "will" happen or not. I say it won't, so they don't need to roll.

Maybe I just need to add "GM fiat trumps all other rules" somewhere on the sheet.

Actually, looking at this, I should probably reword the first box: I would never make a PC automatically fail without first telling them that they have absolutely no hope of succeeding and they should consider an alternative action.

3 hours ago, edwardavern said:

Actually, looking at this, I should probably reword the first box: I would never make a PC automatically fail without first telling them that they have absolutely no hope of succeeding and they should consider an alternative action.

I think that's wise - although I do agree there are situations where this could happen, I would hope they could be avoided prior to being painted into a corner.