11 minutes ago, korjik said:

I have news for you guys. No one dies in a game. There is no real risk or reward.

Obviously there are people here who consider the chance of their character dying or failing a risk, and the character surviving or succeeding/thriving a reward. The benefits and consequences they have on the story and one's enjoyment or interaction with it are what make it "real".

I don't think it's helpful to the discussion to get into a philosophical debate about whether a game can have "real" risk or reward, but I do think it is a fact that it has real risk and reward for me and my players, and that's good enough for me. Let people enjoy things in their own way and please don't condescend towards them in an effort to invalidate their experience or choices that are not hurting anyone.

10 hours ago, korjik said:

I have news for you guys. No one dies in a game. There is no real risk or reward.

Hmm, ok then perhaps what we can say is that on the mechanical level (playing the rules vs. creating the story) the players and the GM by secondary effect can be reinforced by moments of the dice indicating something positive. This is easy enough to relate to because when in real life you win a prize or some other fortunate event happens you are happy about it, so when the characters have such events it would be a normal human reaction to experience some sense of vicarious happiness for the characters.

Characters are not real, but because of the ability that we have to generalize to archetypal situations and figures, we can see something that is plainly not a real person and assign life to it in how we regard it.

I like to play TTRPGs with as little competition in them as possible, and while I like the whole Happy Reward portion, I cannot stand tantrums due to people "losing" because of rule adjudications or dice rolling bad. I reject the idea that you need to feel pissed off when you lose so you can feel happy when you win. That contrast isn't necessary and to be honest it is like engaging in horseplay, sooner or later someone hits too hard and it's a real fight.

So when you get around the table there is a real risk that someone will get angry. There is a real reward when they have something fun happen in the game and feel elated about that moment in the fiction. Story is a powerful force in our existence that should not be underestimated.

That having been said I wish more people would play from the idea that losing and failure is often ore interesting than succeeding, and character death can give meaning to whole campaigns.

1 hour ago, panpolyqueergeek said:

Obviously there are people here who consider the chance of their character dying or failing a risk, and the character surviving or succeeding/thriving a reward. The benefits and consequences they have on the story and one's enjoyment or interaction with it are what make it "real".

I don't think it's helpful to the discussion to get into a philosophical debate about whether a game can have "real" risk or reward, but I do think it is a fact that it has real risk and reward for me and my players, and that's good enough for me. Let people enjoy things in their own way and please don't condescend towards them in an effort to invalidate their experience or choices that are not hurting anyone.

Are you going to say the same thing to 2P51? Or is my PTSD less important than me not being condescending? Or is it that because you agree with 2P51 he must not actually be as condescending as I am?

As someone who still occasionally wakes up at night when scenes of real death come out of my memories and into my dreams, I only have one thing to say:

This is a game

1 hour ago, korjik said:

Are you going to say the same thing to 2P51? Or is my PTSD less important than me not being condescending? Or is it that because you agree with 2P51 he must not actually be as condescending as I am?

As someone who still occasionally wakes up at night when scenes of real death come out of my memories and into my dreams, I only have one thing to say:

This is a game 

O, I think 2P51 is very condescending, maybe even as much as you are. I do not agree with him that death "has" to have a seat at the table, but I do disagree that there is absolutely no "real" risk or reward in the game at all. Yes, this is a game. Yes, games can have "real" risks and rewards. This does not have to be true for everyone for every game.

I am not here to invalidate how you interact with the game, and find that tabletop gaming helps me immensely with my own PTSD. I recognize that playing a game that does not have real world risks and rewards for you is a valid way to interact with it. I'm truly sorry that this has caused you harm.

That being said: is it the discussion of "real" risk and reward what is upsetting, or the subject of death in general?

3 hours ago, korjik said:

I only have one thing to say:

This is a game

No one is arguing that it is anything more than a game, nor are we arguing for player deaths as a stake. What some of us are saying is that, in a game and setting that frequently involves combat, character death should be a real possibility (and the rules support this). That possibility adds in-game risks and rewards that some players appreciate.

3 hours ago, korjik said:

This is a game

Um...yeah. The risk and reward under discussion is in the context of a game. That's why were discussing it on a gaming forum, hosted by a game publisher.

I don't get the comments about 25P1 and condescension and PTSD, if you're bringing that in from another thread maybe you should reconsider.

On 7/6/2018 at 2:39 PM, Alphabonnie101/TheHeroking said:

Should I start showing the PCs my rolls or stick to concealing them?

How do you encourage everyone at the table to come up with ways and suggestions on to read the roll if you don't show what the dice show?

16 hours ago, korjik said:

Or is my PTSD less important than me not being condescending?

As someone who still occasionally wakes up at night when scenes of real death come out of my memories and into my dreams, I only have one thing to say:

This is a game

Get some help, friend. You don't have to live like that.

19 hours ago, panpolyqueergeek said:

, but I do think it is a fact that it has real risk and reward for me and my players, and that's good enough for me.

You, me, and pretty much the sum of human experience. That's why we tell stories.

On 7/7/2018 at 8:08 AM, Genuine said:

The first is that they want to keep their NPC stats secret. I'm not sure how valid that is - it makes sense in D&D where you can get a perfect probability for any roll, but on the triple-axis FFG system it matters a lot less.

This is why I tend to roll in secret. It doesn't always help though when you are rolling opposed checks. I had a major plot slightly derailed because the players tried a social check on an NPC that just joined them. I forget what it was, but the importance of that NPC was revealed because the difficulty of the roll was 4 reds. I didn't like the option of giving a lesser difficulty now, then later having an increased difficulty, just because he revealed himself. I was tempted to roll the negative dice behind the screen and just tell them what the results were.

Duplicate

Duplicate

1 hour ago, Edgookin said:

This is why I tend to roll in secret. It doesn't always help though when you are rolling opposed checks. I had a major plot slightly derailed because the players tried a social check on an NPC that just joined them. I forget what it was, but the importance of that NPC was revealed because the difficulty of the roll was 4 reds. I didn't like the option of giving a lesser difficulty now, then later having an increased difficulty, just because he revealed himself. I was tempted to roll the negative dice behind the screen and just tell them what the results were.

It's a narrative game. Players need to be able to separate their knowledge from what the characters know.

14 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

It's a narrative game. Players need to be able to separate their knowledge from what the characters know.

And even if they don't, I still don't see the point. I've created inconsequential NPCs with good stats enough that my players know a good dice pool doesn't equate to "plot importance"...and the flip side is also true.

I feel like having an exposed dice mechanic is a trust building exercise with you and the players. Keeps everyone honest and cooperating. I usually ask the players to actually roll for me because they still have a stake in that pool. The game has Destiny Points for either side to use in fudging a bit if you want to use them Narratively so there is some input in case a random Jawa manages to TPK the group with an Ion Rifle and his body odor.

Well, start handing out randomly large dice pools. Even NPC's of lesser importance might still have a large one. Lobot for example is the ultimate background character, aside from his headband and his importance to Lando, he was effectively a no-body specialist that had a small role in the larger plot. Likewise there might be some information brokers/other trader NPC's who are naturally pretty **** good at their trade, despite having very little apparent interest in the larger plot. Or maybe there are a few body guards that are exceptionally good at coercing people, conveying the importance of their business despite being relatively small players/hired guns.

Or just occasionally throw in someone really good into a scene that isn't aligned with the players or the antagonist but rather is aiming to achieve some things in similar optimistic fashion. A series of books about a group of smugglers has a pretty good example of that in Dark Skys/Dark Deeds where a relatively minor background character in one book was more then what they seemed in the next, of a gambling table of a variety of gamblers within a huge criminal empire. Having characters that aren't necessarily dangerous to the PC's, but getting a bit ratty about being outted might prevent "metagaming" based on attributes, which can add a bit of depth to the magittude of certain world events.

That being said, in most star wars movies, it's usually fairly obvious who the major players of a scene are anyway and sometimes dispensing with that is a good thing, as long as players accept the result of the roll. Having players harass an NPC because they were successful in not being IDed for example is one of the things I would do. Until another situation came about where the player would interact with that character again, it's no different to failing a race attempt.

On 8/4/2018 at 5:50 AM, LordBritish said:

Even NPC's of lesser importance might still have a large one. Lobot for example is the ultimate background character, aside from his headband and his importance to Lando, he was effectively a no-body specialist that had a small role in the larger plot.

As an aside, if you have the Jewel of Yavin book, Lobot is actually a pretty potent challenge.

8 hours ago, whafrog said:

As an aside, if you have the Jewel of Yavin book, Lobot is actually a pretty potent challenge.

I had a roll off against him in that adventure, even being a 5 Int character myself, it was an intense challenge even though in the grand scheme of things he was a fairly background character. He isn't an antagonist particularly, he's almost more akin to an environmental risk or an obsicale to overcome.

That being said, given that we ended up turning to Lando later some time after he left Cloud City, I was under the impression Lobot never forgave me for undermining his security. XD.

I roll in the open EXCEPT when the PCs can't possibly know if they succeed or fail. Then, I let them roll the "good" dice out in the open, while I roll the "bad" dice behind a screen. This way, they can get a good idea from their roll if they failed or not, but they won't know for sure since I'm the only one that does the final outcome.

Example: The PCs are following a path that's getting close to the Tuskens' lair. They've already been hit once by some cunning makeshift traps.

PC Scout: I pull out my macrobinoculars and scan the path for anymore traps. "Wait a second guys, I'm scanning for more traps".

Me: Ok, use your Perception (cunning) and add a bonus for the macrobinoculars, but I'm rolling the bad dice.

PC Scout rolls greens, a yellow, and a bonus die and does pretty well.

I roll the purples and see that yes, they would have noticed the traps. However, there aren't any. I give them a poker face and shrug.

PC Scout: I rolled well so...…"It looks clear folks, let's proceed, but with some vigilance please"....hint hint ref.

25 minutes ago, Sturn said:

I roll in the open EXCEPT when the PCs can't possibly know if they succeed or fail. Then, I let them roll the "good" dice out in the open, while I roll the "bad" dice behind a screen. This way, they can get a good idea from their roll if they failed or not, but they won't know for sure since I'm the only one that does the final outcome.

Example: The PCs are following a path that's getting close to the Tuskens' lair. They've already been hit once by some cunning makeshift traps.

PC Scout: I pull out my macrobinoculars and scan the path for anymore traps. "Wait a second guys, I'm scanning for more traps".

Me: Ok, use your Perception (cunning) and add a bonus for the macrobinoculars, but I'm rolling the bad dice.

PC Scout rolls greens, a yellow, and a bonus die and does pretty well.

I roll the purples and see that yes, they would have noticed the traps. However, there aren't any. I give them a poker face and shrug.

PC Scout: I rolled well so...…"It looks clear folks, let's proceed, but with some vigilance please"....hint hint ref.

I think that, for this game, it's still better to roll the dice in the open because the PCs never see the rolls even if their players do. Sure, you have to have players that can compartmentalize their own knowledge from that of their characters, but I've found that most of them do just fine if given the chance.

2 hours ago, Sturn said:

I roll in the open EXCEPT when the PCs can't possibly know if they succeed or fail.

I have to ask, what's the point of rolling then? Usually the point of rolling is to try and resolve tension or make progress in a situation. If they succeed, they should be rewarded with a reduction of tension and progress, not penalized with FUD. They may make bad decisions based on this lack of information which ends up causing more trouble, and as a player I'd have to wonder why my awesome Perception result didn't change anything for the better, and actually made things worse.

Also, your example doesn't let either your or the players leverage any narrative results. Maybe they spot traps that were already triggered, and can leverage Advantage to recover some strain, breathing a sigh of relief that they noticed them; or you can apply strain from Threat as they notice more traps but are worried about having missed one.

The upshot is, if you or the players can't leverage the results of a roll in a meaningful way, there's no point rolling at all.

5 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

I think that, for this game, it's still better to roll the dice in the open because the PCs never see the rolls even if their players do. Sure, you have to have players that can compartmentalize their own knowledge from that of their characters, but I've found that most of them do just fine if given the chance.

That totally depends on the group. I had one group (not this system) that everyone chose to loot the body simultaneously. I called for a perception check, and 1 player took that as a cue to look around for other threats. Luckily, my dice were with me, and with a random roll of who got hit, it was him. "Hey guys, maybe there are more of {splat}"

13 hours ago, whafrog said:

I have to ask, what's the point of rolling then? Usually the point of rolling is to try and resolve tension or make progress in a situation.

In my example with no traps/mines, the point is:

Fail or Succeed = Tension, but they have some clues on their next decision based on their half of the roll. Without a roll, they don't.

If my example included actual traps/mines, the point is:

Fail: Again, Tension. They don't know if they failed and there are mines or they succeeded and there are not. But, they at least have a clue to help them make their next decision. Without a roll, they don't.

Succeed: They see the traps/mines.

RPG's are supposed to somewhat mimic reality in decision making. It's not as fun if you are all-knowing but have to make decisions based upon what only your character knows. Sure that can be done, but it's not as fun or realistic. This method creates more realistic (and fun) decision making in my opinion.

ETA: If there are mines, and you roll everything in the open but fail, are all players going to march their characters down the center of the path? Some may play it correctly and do so, but it still creates a silly, "let's march to our death woohoo!" moment I would prefer to avoid. I would prefer it be, well Stan rolled good, but we can't be sure. So, do we take an alternate route? Or do we tentatively move forward hoping we don't set off another mine since we need to get in there quick and quietly? More realistic, more stressful, and more fun, in my opinion.

I roll my dice in the open and let the group interpret the result in collaboration, that way the story grows organically and everyone gets to be as involved as they want to be.

Allowing the Pcs to offer ideas for spending threats and despair as well as advantages and triumphs promotes better roleplaying in my opinion. After all they are only suggestions and the GMs result is final if you don't agree with the players ideas.

4 hours ago, Sturn said:

It's not as fun if you are all-knowing

But they aren't "all-knowing", they only know there aren't traps.

5 hours ago, Sturn said:

ETA: If there are mines, and you roll everything in the open but fail, are all players going to march their characters down the center of the path? Some may play it correctly and do so, but it still creates a silly, "let's march to our death woohoo!" moment I would prefer to avoid.

Really? They would do that just because "there aren't traps"? What about lookouts or scouts or droid spies? The point is they still have to make smart decisions, or you get to bonk them with the dunce hammer some other way.

5 hours ago, Sturn said:

but they have some clues on their next decision based on their half of the roll

Not really. They don't know if you rolled a single setback die, or a mitt-full of reds. Their half means nothing, so there's no point.