12 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

The problem comes that a TN 2 is roughly equal to a TN 10 in the old system. which you have a 10% changes in 4th to hit on one dice without exploding, but a 0% chance in 5th. Not sure on the exact numbers but this % gap get wider and wider as the TN goes up even with exploding. This gap becomes more noticeable as you get higher R&K levels. So maybe not the Ring dice but I do feel that the Skill dice need at least one 2 success spot on them to fix this.

The odds of getting 2 S on 1D, with the exploding, on Ring dice: 1/6 * 1/2 = 1/12 - just a bit harder than 1d10 for 1 in 10

You can't have a 1d on skill die.

Now, given the 1/6 chance of open ending, versus the 1/10 under 1E...

The odds are actually rather comparable to 1E. It's the rescale that makes it look worse.

15 minutes ago, AK_Aramis said:

The odds of getting 2 S on 1D, with the exploding, on Ring dice: 1/6 * 1/2 = 1/12 - just a bit harder than 1d10 for 1 in 10

You can't have a 1d on skill die.

Now, given the 1/6 chance of open ending, versus the 1/10 under 1E...

The odds are actually rather comparable to 1E. It's the rescale that makes it look worse.

I know you can't have one d in skill dice.

the point I was making is that even with one die and no explosions in 4th you could still hit a TN of 10 since the dice went up to 10.

while under the same conditions you could not hit a TN 2 on either of the dice in this game.

but lets look at this with different dice totals.

4th ed

I roll a unskilled roll for "whatever" skill my trait is 3

so that's 3k3. I can hit at max a target number of 30 Which is the rough equivalent of TN 6 in 5th

5th ed

if we ignore exploding dice for a minute.

on a 3k3 roll in 5th max hit a TN3

Now even with exploding dice I would have to explode 3 times on this roll just to reach TN 6 which can be reached without exploding in 4th.

the point I'm trying to make is not that the dice are not working but that statistically they tend to fall off rather quickly on success chances versus the old system and could be fix quite easily by just adding a double success.

3 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

I know you can't have one d in skill dice.

the point I was making is that even with one die and no explosions in 4th you could still hit a TN of 10 since the dice went up to 10.

while under the same conditions you could not hit a TN 2 on either of the dice in this game.

but lets look at this with different dice totals.

4th ed

I roll a unskilled roll for "whatever" skill my trait is 3

so that's 3k3. I can hit at max a target number of 30 Which is the rough equivalent of TN 6 in 5th

5th ed

if we ignore exploding dice for a minute.

on a 3k3 roll in 5th max hit a TN3

Now even with exploding dice I would have to explode 3 times on this roll just to reach TN 6 which can be reached without exploding in 4th.

the point I'm trying to make is not that the dice are not working but that statistically they tend to fall off rather quickly on success chances versus the old system and could be fix quite easily by just adding a double success.

Let's take your 3k3 (so 3 ring dice) -

1e doesn't chart 3k3 for ≥40, so... but that math is easy {1/10} * {1/10} * {1/10) without open. So 1/1000. Which, you don't get to open anyway, because you're not using a skill...

Now, to hit a 12, yeah, it's stupidly hard.

But, having crawled through the majority of the spellbook carefully -
Let's compare ... I'm using 3E, as that's to hand (and I don't recall the process for 1E)

Rise, Flame. ML6, so 3E TN is 10+(ML*5)+(raises*5) = 40 with no raises
The 5E is TN 6. No raises before the roll; Opportunity after

Know the Mind ML 4, so TN 30+raises..
TN 4, however, in 5E

Extinguish: ML1, TN 15. vs 5E, TN3

It's not rigidly 10 nor 5 per each, but looks roughly 1+(3e TN/10).

1 hour ago, AK_Aramis said:

Let's take your 3k3 (so 3 ring dice) -

1e doesn't chart 3k3 for ≥40, so... but that math is easy {1/10} * {1/10} * {1/10) without open. So 1/1000. Which, you don't get to open anyway, because you're not using a skill...

Now, to hit a 12, yeah, it's stupidly hard.

But, having crawled through the majority of the spellbook carefully -
Let's compare ... I'm using 3E, as that's to hand (and I don't recall the process for 1E)

Rise, Flame. ML6, so 3E TN is 10+(ML*5)+(raises*5) = 40 with no raises
The 5E is TN 6. No raises before the roll; Opportunity after

Know the Mind ML 4, so TN 30+raises..
TN 4, however, in 5E

Extinguish: ML1, TN 15. vs 5E, TN3

It's not rigidly 10 nor 5 per each, but looks roughly 1+(3e TN/10).

Not sure what your trying to say here?

14 hours ago, player2636234 said:

Rings no longer predispose any character to any sort of activity. Each ring is equally viable in all fields. The only thing that divides a Crane from a Crab is their techniques. Skills, Kata, Shuji, Equipment... these can all be obtained by either with few exceptions.

So can Rings. Raising a ring is more expensive than raising a skill, but is also available to everyone.

A ring is equally viable in all fields, but not in all approaches and hence may not be useable to do the thing you actually want to do to [target object].

So Hida McLoomy, with Earth 3, regardless of his skills, can do a pretty good job at presenting the facts at court (courtesy), or at fixing a mundane broken sword (smithing), or at building a house (labour), or securing it against thieves (skulduggery).

With his Void 1, by comparison, he's going to be naff all use at dealing with religious fanatics who aren't going to listen to facts (courtesy), sensing that the fragments of the broken sword are anything but mundane* (smithing), figuring out how to site the house in harmony with shelter from the weather provided by the local terrain (labour), or avoiding notice so thieves never realise there is anything worth stealing in the house in the first place and go rob someone else instead (skulduggery).

* Example Earth-heavy, Void-Light character:

"I have reforged the shards of Narsil!"

"Yes...into a set of letter-openers ."

"So? It was just lying there not being used. We get a lot of post, you know, and papercuts are dangerous."

"You really don't get it, do you?"

Just to chuck this out there, I don't think FFG tried to model the the probability curves of 5e to match 4e, just like they weren't trying to model any d20 Star Wars probability curves when they created Edge of the Empire . If you approach the new dice with the assumption that they're wrong because they don't match the old system's percentages, then you'll never be anything but dissatisfied because that's not the intent (to my knowledge).

Which is not to say that you can't approach the new dice without assumptions and still go away dissatisfied. That is totally within your rights, in which case 4e may be more your cup of tea, or Oriental Adventures , or The Blossoms Are Falling by Luke Crane, or Blood and Honor by John Wick, or Bushido ... There's no shortage of feudal-Japan-esque role playing games that may suit your table much better, just as you may prefer Star Wars d20, Star Wars Saga Edition, or Star Wars d6 over Edge of the Empire .

But please, give FFG some respect for trying to innovate (successful or not - your call) and then find the game that suits your table, rather than saying they're bad at making games because the game isn't all you hoped and dreamed.

11 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

if we ignore exploding dice for a minute.

I don't think its fair to ignore exploding dice when comparing your chance to succeed at any TN with the new system. Ring and Skill dice both have a 1/6 chance of exploding, that is a pretty high chance!

-------------------------

My problem with the dice isn't the chance of success. I actually feel like my group is decently challenged. The dice chances and TN are well balanced imo - what is missing is the choice.

In the Beta they spoke about choosing how you would succeed, and at what cost. The combination of success + opportunity requirements makes more specific actions more difficult to target properly, and being able to use Strife as a wildcard sounds good to me.

I hope the dice aren't finalized yet - I know the beta has a schedule through the end of the year, but do we know the planned release date? I doubt dice would be ordered more than 3 months before release.

My initial reaction to seeing the dice was that I would consider changing the explosion symbol to represent double success instead. I'm not as concerned about the explosive success anymore, but that would be an option to try if you were interested, instead of physically altering the dice.

1 minute ago, deraforia said:

My initial reaction to seeing the dice was that I would consider changing the explosion symbol to represent double success instead. I'm not as concerned about the explosive success anymore, but that would be an option to try if you were interested, instead of physically altering the dice.

I'd call that a decent idea to test. Edge of the Empire had the coveted Triumph symbols, which were a Success and always something great to boot. Here a player might take an Explosive Success / Strife die over a Success die to gamble for more Successes and then roll a blank.

You might even say an Explosive Success counts as a Success, plus another Success or an Opportunity, to put some player choice into it and help out with the critical hits.

7 minutes ago, deraforia said:

My initial reaction to seeing the dice was that I would consider changing the explosion symbol to represent double success instead. I'm not as concerned about the explosive success anymore, but that would be an option to try if you were interested, instead of physically altering the dice.

Double success doesn't solve my issue. My problem is that if I want to hit and crit a character I need 2 success and 2 opportunity. 3 success + 1 op, or 1 success + 3 op doesn't work for me. Whenever our goal is going to require success + opportunity we take a lot more risk. If we had a choice to accept Strife as a cost for a wild symbol it would give the players more incentive to accept Strife, and it would help us accomplish being more bada samurai more.

11 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

Not sure what your trying to say here?

It's not a 3E tn 5 = 5E tn1

It looks more to be 3E TN +10 = 5E TN +1, with 3E TN15 = 5E TN1

And even that's not a rigid in the spells converting.

In other words, your whole argument is invalid as you assumed a difficulty conversion that doesn't hold up.

2 hours ago, shosuko said:

My problem is that if I want to hit and crit a character I need 2 success and 2 opportunity.

Maybe FFG designed the game such that with a Ring 3 + whatever Skill roll, you need decent explosions to hit and crit, meaning starting characters ("unproven samurai") only crit once in a while.This could be incredibly deliberate, and similar to how calling a Feint for two Raises in 4e required a -10 to your total, putting it beyond a lot of starting samurai. There's an important difference, however, in that in 5e you're not reducing your chance of hitting in the first place to maybe be more destructive.

FFG rarely ever (in my experience with all Star Wars / Warhammer RPG incarnations) paints starting characters as hyper-competent. Edge of the Empire starting characters are alright, Dark Heresy , Only War , and Warhammer Fantasy starting characters outright suck. The exceptions that I've noted are Rogue Trader , where you're at least decent at several things, and Death Watch , where you're a godlike space marine.

There's a super simple fix to make you and players at your table feel more like BA samurai: dish out some bonus XP at the start. More XP can quickly lead to more consistent critical hits and less Strife.

@MuttonchopMac Dark Heresy wasn't written by FFG; it was by Black Industries originally, and when BI got inundated with fan-wankerism, they talked GW into outsourcing the rest of the line...

I'll note that EotW characters are usually mechanically moderately competent.
Twilight Imperium RPG Characters were not great but not horrible.
I've not got a grip on Grimm nor Fireborn.

2 minutes ago, AK_Aramis said:

@MuttonchopMac Dark Heresy wasn't written by FFG; it was by Black Industries originally, and when BI got inundated with fan-wankerism, they talked GW into outsourcing the rest of the line...

I'll note that EotW characters are usually mechanically moderately competent.
Twilight Imperium RPG Characters were not great but not horrible.
I've not got a grip on Grimm nor Fireborn.

Good catch - Dark Heresy 2e got most of my play time.

Do you feel like starting characters in L5R 5e are competent enough? They seem just fine to me, but my group loves them their bumbling Dark Heresy characters because failure is interesting to us.

5 minutes ago, MuttonchopMac said:

Good catch - Dark Heresy 2e got most of my play time.

Do you feel like starting characters in L5R 5e are competent enough? They seem just fine to me, but my group loves them their bumbling Dark Heresy characters because failure is interesting to us.

@AK_Aramis missed the 24 bonus XP to be given to the PCs for the beta adventure and apparently it didn’t result in them being noticeably weak. To me that suggests starting characters out of chargen as is are far from gimped.

Yes, I do.

It's the same issue as with WEG star wars...

A starting character looks incompetent because of all the whitespace on the character sheet, but the attribute driven design makes starting PC's very broadly competent at routine tasks.

1R 0S 1K TN1 is still 50%...
1R 0S 1K TN2 is still 9%
1R 0S 1K TK3 is about 1.5%

1R 1S 1K TN1 is about 79%
1R 1S 1K TN2 is about 16%
1R 1S 1K TN3 is about 2.7%

Given the mechanic change, dropping from 2 per ring to 1 per ring keeps the odds pretty close... the much broader skills likewise are a good fit for about half as many as 1E ... a direct comparison to 2E—4E is harder.

I'm looking at it this way: A non-combattant has at worst possible a roughly 9% chance of hit upon a martial one He's a 90% chance (or more) of being hit back...

23 hours ago, MuttonchopMac said:

Maybe FFG designed the game such that with a Ring 3 + whatever Skill roll, you need decent explosions to hit and crit, meaning starting characters ("unproven samurai") only crit once in a while.This could be incredibly deliberate, and similar to how calling a Feint for two Raises in 4e required a -10 to your total, putting it beyond a lot of starting samurai. There's an important difference, however, in that in 5e you're not reducing your chance of hitting in the first place to maybe be more destructive.

I'm not saying a new character should be able to hit + crit every time, what I'm saying is that even rolling 7k4 it might be tough to get 2+2 because you might get too many success, or too many opportunities, and putting them together might let a skilled samurai fail in the worst way - which is to say too much success, or too much opportunity, which may result in a failure. I think a wild-card symbol can help players achieve their desired results - which also means a GM can require a more specific result on a check to challenge more advanced characters.

Also - I think that perception is a major problem currently. Many people see the dice as a core issue with the game - specifically because Strife is randomly generated by dice as a penalty. FFG poses the situation that "Strife is a cost, and you choose to pay that cost to succeed at your task," but this narrative falls flat in that Strife doesn't do anything. People aren't seeing Strife as a cost, but as a penalty.

I want to change the dice so that Strife is an option with a cost, rather than a penalty randomly tacked on to success / opportunity results. My concept here is almost entirely about perception. I don't think people like that Strife seems to be an entirely negative system, they don't see it as a cost, just a random penalty.

WoW introduced a system by which characters became "fatigued" after a certain amount of time playing in a day. The system was horrible, and players railed against it. Wow changed the terms from "normal" and "fatigued" to "rested" and "normal" and suddenly it became a good thing... Player perception is important. FFG wants Strife to be an option / cost for success, but the way it is branded currently fails as player perception sees it as a random penalty. If we shift presentation by taking the Success and Opportunity symbols off of these sides, and say that Strife does something - it gives either a Success or Opportunity result, I bet players will understand the cost element and enjoy the system much more.

3 hours ago, shosuko said:

Double success doesn't solve my issue. My problem is that if I want to hit and crit a character I need 2 success and 2 opportunity. 3 success + 1 op, or 1 success + 3 op doesn't work for me. Whenever our goal is going to require success + opportunity we take a lot more risk. If we had a choice to accept Strife as a cost for a wild symbol it would give the players more incentive to accept Strife, and it would help us accomplish being more bada samurai more.

Remember that you can spend a Void Point to Seize The Moment during Step 3 - which means that you can decide to do that at any moment between rolling the dice pool and applying advantages/disadvantages. This means that you can see that, for example, you have rolled enough successes and opportunities to do a crit, but you can only keep 3 of them - and that Void Point will help you keep that "final" die. Seize the Moment in our experience works much better as "POWER PLAY NOW!" tool than anything else, really.

15 minutes ago, shosuko said:

I'm not saying a new character should be able to hit + crit every time, what I'm saying is that even rolling 7k4 it might be tough to get 2+2 because you might get too many success, or too many opportunities, and putting them together might let a skilled samurai fail in the worst way - which is to say too much success, or too much opportunity, which may result in a failure. I think a wild-card symbol can help players achieve their desired results - which also means a GM can require a more specific result on a check to challenge more advanced characters.

I'm all for a shift in general perception of Strife, but you're also shoehorning an additional rule in. One thing that might help (it worked for me - your mileage may vary) is to viewing the die rolling process backwards.

Almost all RPGs approach cool bonus effects on rolls as things you have to call before the roll that make it harder. "I'm calling three Raises for a extra damage and a feint!" "I'll trigger the Power Attack feat for -2 to hit and +4 damage!" ... The Star Wars narrative dice and this game (as far as I can tell) work backwards: you roll with some specified intent, then find out about cool bonus effects.

The former approach is loosely: Narrative (I swing my sword at the bandit), Cool Stuff (AND I'm calling three Raises for extra damage and a feint), then Roll, and quite often, Disappointment because the Cool Stuff leads to a failed Roll. The latter approach is loosely: Narrative (I swing my sword at the bandit), Roll, then Cool Stuff (AND I got two Opportunity to boot for a critical hit!), and less often, Disappointment because the Roll failed and the stakes were high, but not because the Cool Stuff made you fail.

If you're looking at the system as the GM sets TN and minimum Opportunity to achieve the desired result, then you're putting the Cool Stuff before the Roll and setting stuff up for disappointment.

1 hour ago, AK_Aramis said:

@MuttonchopMac Dark Heresy wasn't written by FFG; it was by Black Industries originally, and when BI got inundated with fan-wankerism, they talked GW into outsourcing the rest of the line...

I'll note that EotW characters are usually mechanically moderately competent.
Twilight Imperium RPG Characters were not great but not horrible.
I've not got a grip on Grimm nor Fireborn.

Wow I have only seen this book once along time ago and was wondering if it was worth tracking it down.

1 hour ago, MuttonchopMac said:

I'm all for a shift in general perception of Strife, but you're also shoehorning an additional rule in. One thing that might help (it worked for me - your mileage may vary) is to viewing the die rolling process backwards.

Almost all RPGs approach cool bonus effects on rolls as things you have to call before the roll that make it harder. "I'm calling three Raises for a extra damage and a feint!" "I'll trigger the Power Attack feat for -2 to hit and +4 damage!" ... The Star Wars narrative dice and this game (as far as I can tell) work backwards: you roll with some specified intent, then find out about cool bonus effects.

The former approach is loosely: Narrative (I swing my sword at the bandit), Cool Stuff (AND I'm calling three Raises for extra damage and a feint), then Roll, and quite often, Disappointment because the Cool Stuff leads to a failed Roll. The latter approach is loosely: Narrative (I swing my sword at the bandit), Roll, then Cool Stuff (AND I got two Opportunity to boot for a critical hit!), and less often, Disappointment because the Roll failed and the stakes were high, but not because the Cool Stuff made you fail.

If you're looking at the system as the GM sets TN and minimum Opportunity to achieve the desired result, then you're putting the Cool Stuff before the Roll and setting stuff up for disappointment.

Its not a matter of my perspective. I'm fine with the Strife. I think making this change will help those who do not like the system because they feel it is forced, that it is just random punishment, and that it is unnecessary. I believe they feel this way because Strife seems to simply be tacked on to what would otherwise be a success or opportunity. If we change Strife to be the complete element its self rather than a tacked on negative modifier people will stop seeing it as an arbitrary punishment. This change is more in line with FFG's intention when they said "Custom dice mechanics enable players to contribute to the unfolding story and decide whether their character succeeds, by how much, and how much it will cost them."

As far as the challenge and success + opportunity - sometimes you know what you need to do before you roll. Sometimes you know you need to cut the strings on someone's armor, or you know you need to crit them to finish them, or you know you need to do something faster than normal to get the success you want. This is where the success + opportunity TN system becomes much more frustrating, because you can succeed by a LOT and fail to gain the opportunities needed, or vice versa.

The current system is like "I attack them *rolls* oh cool and I crit too!" and that's great! Many people already used a type of "post roll raise" system to reflect amazingly lucky rolls. It doesn't suit the situation like "You've found that you must cut the head from the zombie to actually kill it." though, and I think that is equally important to have in the system. The current system favors the first situation where cool stuff can happen b/c luck, but it fails on the part where you need specific things to happen b/c challenge. Changing Strife to be an optional success or opportunity helps the RPG fulfill the fantasy properly both ways.

23 minutes ago, shosuko said:

The current system is like "I attack them *rolls* oh cool and I crit too!" and that's great! Many people already used a type of "post roll raise" system to reflect amazingly lucky rolls. It doesn't suit the situation like "You've found that you must cut the head from the zombie to actually kill it." though, and I think that is equally important to have in the system. The current system favors the first situation where cool stuff can happen b/c luck, but it fails on the part where you need specific things to happen b/c challenge. Changing Strife to be an optional success or opportunity helps the RPG fulfill the fantasy properly both ways.

Interesting. I would handle the aforementioned zombies by saying that you can drop it by wounds (the thing is in several pieces and can't mount any reasonable attack) or by a single critical (the head is removed). If speed was ever a requirement, well, combat initiative sorts that out instantly, so in narrative-context, I'd say the TN is based on time. I.E. An artisan is trying to make a beautiful piece of calligraphy to give to his daimyo, which may also make a poignant statement and change his mind about say, declaring war. But time is important because it needs to be made before the daimyo commits to war. Thus the TN is at +1 because the artisan is rushing, and a failed roll indicates that the calligraphy was not completed on time, though it may still have been completed.

To chuck out one more example, if a player wants to do some special thing and that is the highest priority (We're fighting and I need to knock this guy flat on his back) then the most important element sets the TN. The player rolls, and success means the target is prone, not that damage was dealt. Maybe extra opportunities could deal some chip damage.

To me, opportunity is never about success / failure; it's about expanding upon the roll after the fact. Success is governed by successes only. Please bear in mind that this is all my opinion and how I would handle it at my table...

5 hours ago, shosuko said:

Double success doesn't solve my issue.

Ah, yeah. I think I meant that more for tenchi2a who wants to be able to get two successes on one die without explosive successes. Sorry for the confusion, I was on my lunch without much time left.

1 hour ago, MuttonchopMac said:

Interesting. I would handle the aforementioned zombies by saying that you can drop it by wounds (the thing is in several pieces and can't mount any reasonable attack) or by a single critical (the head is removed). If speed was ever a requirement, well, combat initiative sorts that out instantly, so in narrative-context, I'd say the TN is based on time. I.E. An artisan is trying to make a beautiful piece of calligraphy to give to his daimyo, which may also make a poignant statement and change his mind about say, declaring war. But time is important because it needs to be made before the daimyo commits to war. Thus the TN is at +1 because the artisan is rushing, and a failed roll indicates that the calligraphy was not completed on time, though it may still have been completed.

To chuck out one more example, if a player wants to do some special thing and that is the highest priority (We're fighting and I need to knock this guy flat on his back) then the most important element sets the TN. The player rolls, and success means the target is prone, not that damage was dealt. Maybe extra opportunities could deal some chip damage.

To me, opportunity is never about success / failure; it's about expanding upon the roll after the fact. Success is governed by successes only. Please bear in mind that this is all my opinion and how I would handle it at my table...

Conceptually Opportunities are roughly equivilant to raises. The check is for the basic action "I attacked them." The opportunities drive the effects "I attacked him AND cut a weak point in their armor (Striking as Water to cut resistance)" or "I attacked him AND cut his eye out (crit severity 8-9 in water stance)." I don't think its in character for the game to simply raise the TN for this - or else I should be able to raise the TN to cut the weak point in their armor without buying Striking as Water.

Simply raising the TN is potentially problematic with this new game as TN's of 4-6 are really tough. The dice only have a 50% and 60% chance of rolling a success, if you need success, and only success, not some combination of success + opportunity, then a lot of the dice facets are effectively blank. Its tougher if you need a lot of opportunity because there is no explosive opportunity, and only 33% chance of rolling an opportunity on either die type...

This really sidelines some of the more narrative driven story-fights where you actually have to do something to win, not just deal damage. I really enjoyed posing these challenges to players because it allows me to give them a challenge, and then have that challenge become easier as they catalog their knowledge of their opponent's weak spots. It also gets everyone into the game more because they aren't looking at simple numbers, stats, and die rolls but actually thinking of what they should do, and how they should do it. Cutting off a Zombies head, cutting between armor plates, disarming ect are all great ways to let players learn the world and become invested in their character.

I kinda hope they do something to let you purposefully perform a certain thing better as the Success + Opportunities combinations feel very chancy... I'm no statistician but maybe someone can cook up the odds of getting 2 Success and 2 Opportunity with some dice combos so we can see what we're really looking at? The dice only have a 50% and 58% chance of rolling success, and only a 33% chance of rolling an op.

13 hours ago, shosuko said:

Conceptually Opportunities are roughly equivilant to raises. The check is for the basic action "I attacked them." The opportunities drive the effects "I attacked him AND cut a weak point in their armor (Striking as Water to cut resistance)" or "I attacked him AND cut his eye out (crit severity 8-9 in water stance)." I don't think its in character for the game to simply raise the TN for this - or else I should be able to raise the TN to cut the weak point in their armor without buying Striking as Water.

Simply raising the TN is potentially problematic with this new game as TN's of 4-6 are really tough. The dice only have a 50% and 60% chance of rolling a success, if you need success, and only success, not some combination of success + opportunity, then a lot of the dice facets are effectively blank. Its tougher if you need a lot of opportunity because there is no explosive opportunity, and only 33% chance of rolling an opportunity on either die type...

This really sidelines some of the more narrative driven story-fights where you actually have to do something to win, not just deal damage. I really enjoyed posing these challenges to players because it allows me to give them a challenge, and then have that challenge become easier as they catalog their knowledge of their opponent's weak spots. It also gets everyone into the game more because they aren't looking at simple numbers, stats, and die rolls but actually thinking of what they should do, and how they should do it. Cutting off a Zombies head, cutting between armor plates, disarming ect are all great ways to let players learn the world and become invested in their character.

I kinda hope they do something to let you purposefully perform a certain thing better as the Success + Opportunities combinations feel very chancy... I'm no statistician but maybe someone can cook up the odds of getting 2 Success and 2 Opportunity with some dice combos so we can see what we're really looking at? The dice only have a 50% and 58% chance of rolling success, and only a 33% chance of rolling an op.

You missed something important: you talk of "I attacked him AND cut a weak point in his armor," when my whole example was that the attack be hanged, I'm doing something else BESIDES attacking the guy here and that is the whole goal of my roll, as much as if I were rolling to climb a wall in the midst of a combat scene. My approach embraces the "narrative driven story-fights" that you want, and lets players set aside dealing wounds out for being part of the story and world. This is a much more narrative-focused approach than your mechanics-focused approach.

Opportunity has nothing to do with Raises in my mind because I'm coming from Edge of the Empire 's Advantage and Triumph, which is quite a bit more nebulous and flexible, where they give bonus effects to the roll, rather than measuring success / failure. The reason that tying Opportunity up in success / failure seems silly to me is that the rules never imply this anywhere, as far as I've seen. Opportunity is always just a bonus effect in addition to the roll AFTER the roll; otherwise players should have to call that they're swinging for a critical hit BEFORE the roll, which is not how the rules work. If you can point me to an example in the rules where it says you need Opportunities or the roll fails, I'll gladly switch to your side on this.

Also, what do you actually want of "chancy" rolls? You're apparently interested in having them by requiring Opportunities above and beyond Successes, but you're also complaining that it's too hard to get a crit, so I don't get what you actually want. TN 3 to do a fun, narrative, non-attack thing is far more likely than TN 2 and 2 Opportunities because you only need to keep 3 dice, rather than 4, and yet you're claiming this is harder to achieve, which I just don't get...

I really don't want to be just another argument on these argument-laden forums, but I'm genuinely confused about your standpoints, which I just can't find rules to back up. Please understand that I'm trying to be clear with the large paragraphs up above, not antagonistic.