2 hours ago, SavageBob said:

These examples are no different from someone trying to play a Drall Heavy or an Anx Thief; you're always within your rights as a GM to say "That concept is silly, so I'd like you to find something else."

As for the examples of Trandoshans and Wookiees, children and Ranats, etc., you're also always within your rights to say it's am impossible task and will require a Destiny Point to even try. Then flip a DP and add a Challenge die to the pool.

At the end of the day, though, I get the impression you and your table may not be right for this system. If you can't allow that some players may want to play face character without being eloquent orators in real life, you might want to consider a system that doesn't allow you to take ranks in socials skills and other abilities.

Whoa Bob, hang on now I didn't say that, and honestly nobody at my table is anywhere near a great orator. I'm asking a question about how far can this go and what can this system do in this area. I will admit that this system does work against me in this area, but I love the game and I don't want to just ditch it because I have some needs that aren't completely in alignment with the RAW.

Occasionally it might be good to ditch the Dice Rolls in favor of a great idea for how to convince someone of something. I don't mean to take the system and chuck it out the window, but I do think that always just letting it go to the dice isn't something I like either. The Talents do have some flavor text so the effect of something like Scathing Tirade, Commanding Presence, Kill with Kindness has at least one form the description can take and the GM can take into account how the Talent might be an actual Talent as we would recognize perhaps in someone who is talking.

Also the Social Dice Check Shortcuts are taking a beating here but I would actually apply this to all checks that could possibly be narrated (not every time though). Athletics, Computers, Mechanics, Perception, Discipline. All of those seem like good candidates for the occasional narrative treatment based on the description. Pass/Fail +/- Super Good, Good/Bad, Super Bad are results you or your players can narrate themselves if they want. I love having the dice generate them but sometimes taking a break from that may allow the game to push a really fast pace, or may take on a personal up close aspect as the camera pushes in on a description of a heavy moment.

37 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

Whoa Bob, hang on now I didn't say that, and honestly nobody at my table is anywhere near a great orator. I'm asking a question about how far can this go and what can this system do in this area. I will admit that this system does work against me in this area, but I love the game and I don't want to just ditch it because I have some needs that aren't completely in alignment with the RAW.

Occasionally it might be good to ditch the Dice Rolls in favor of a great idea for how to convince someone of something. I don't mean to take the system and chuck it out the window, but I do think that always just letting it go to the dice isn't something I like either. The Talents do have some flavor text so the effect of something like Scathing Tirade, Commanding Presence, Kill with Kindness has at least one form the description can take and the GM can take into account how the Talent might be an actual Talent as we would recognize perhaps in someone who is talking.

Also the Social Dice Check Shortcuts are taking a beating here but I would actually apply this to all checks that could possibly be narrated (not every time though). Athletics, Computers, Mechanics, Perception, Discipline. All of those seem like good candidates for the occasional narrative treatment based on the description. Pass/Fail +/- Super Good, Good/Bad, Super Bad are results you or your players can narrate themselves if they want. I love having the dice generate them but sometimes taking a break from that may allow the game to push a really fast pace, or may take on a personal up close aspect as the camera pushes in on a description of a heavy moment.

I understand your problem, I have my younger brother in my group who has a gaming background and his creative side is not yet formed. He is rarely does more then stating he wants to trick the NPC to believe this/that oe some other vague description etc. It's more than enough for me to work, and he'll eventually get caught by the feeling. But ditching dice in these situation would be mistake IMHO. The only time one should ditch dice is when the GM wants them to pass/fail surely for plot reasons. Every other cases shouldn't. Give bonuses for roleplay (boost for good ideas), to encourage them.

1 minute ago, Rimsen said:

I understand your problem, I have my younger brother in my group who has a gaming background and his creative side is not yet formed. He is rarely does more then stating he wants to trick the NPC to believe this/that oe some other vague description etc. It's more than enough for me to work, and he'll eventually get caught by the feeling. But ditching dice in these situation would be mistake IMHO. The only time one should ditch dice is when the GM wants them to pass/fail surely for plot reasons. Every other cases shouldn't. Give bonuses for roleplay (boost for good ideas), to encourage them.

Well I think that in that particular case of your brother your options are very limited and I would do the same thing you are doing from what I can tell. I'm talking about a situation where a player turns in a great performance or idea that is well described. Sometimes the constant mechanics of the dice seem a bit much for an old player like me. If the characters are trying to talk their way into the back door of the club and they have a great plan for doing this in other games you might actually adjudicate how they are doing and just have them go in if their plan was great but also add some risky elements. You can add those risky elements without rolling threat, and the nice thing about their advantages was that they didn't roll them but actually earned them.

I never railroad, so I couldn't handwave dice for the express purpose of that, but for those who do play that way I would understand the need to do so.

But the game has narrative dice, and they are super fun, but they don't need to be used every time someone decides to sneeze, or to figure out the plot of the adventure. Exchanging the occasional check for a ruling based on approach seems like a nice bit of spice for the soup to me.

20 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

Well I think that in that particular case of your brother your options are very limited and I would do the same thing you are doing from what I can tell. I'm talking about a situation where a player turns in a great performance or idea that is well described. Sometimes the constant mechanics of the dice seem a bit much for an old player like me. If the characters are trying to talk their way into the back door of the club and they have a great plan for doing this in other games you might actually adjudicate how they are doing and just have them go in if their plan was great but also add some risky elements. You can add those risky elements without rolling threat, and the nice thing about their advantages was that they didn't roll them but actually earned them.

I never railroad, so I couldn't handwave dice for the express purpose of that, but for those who do play that way I would understand the need to do so.

But the game has narrative dice, and they are super fun, but they don't need to be used every time someone decides to sneeze, or to figure out the plot of the adventure. Exchanging the occasional check for a ruling based on approach seems like a nice bit of spice for the soup to me.

That is understandable. I personally don't like this approach, because it's a bit subjective, and I rather avoid situations like "He didn't have to roll last time, and my argument is as good as his now, why do I have to".

I feel it can be inconsistant since everyone has different ideas what should be enough to bypass teh dice and that might create unwanted tension at the table.

Just now, Rimsen said:

That is understandable. I personally don't like this approach, because it's a bit subjective, and I rather avoid situations like "He didn't have to roll last time, and my argument is as good as his now, why do I have to".

I feel it can be inconsistant since everyone has different ideas what should be enough to bypass teh dice and that might create unwanted tension at the table.

You're right of course, but the rules lawyering and challenging the GM on such things is not something I think is a positive aspect of the hobby these days. I think if the GM is changing stuff on you without clearing it and not making sure it's in the social contract then I would understand that reaction, but if you signed up for the product the GM is presenting then trying to side-seat drive is going to produce problems of its own. There is a lot of "don't do this or players will get mad," but doesn't that lead to...

GM: "After setting off the grenade in the street a squad of 6 Stormtroopers come out of the alleyway and fire at you."

Player: "No. I wasn't given a Perception check."

GM: "Uh ok well then roll a Perceptions check."

Player: "Ok I was watching all of the alleys and I know this town has a garrison so I get a free upgrade to my check. Plus I have Watchful Alertness so I get 2 Blue and I remove 4 Setbacks."

GM: "Ok roll that dice pool then."

Player: "Ah 2 Triumphs. Ok I will say that the Stormtroopers don't see me at all, and at that moment a call comes across the comm that we have been seen in another part of the town."

But it's exciting to have risk vs. reward in the way that you describe things as a player and also in introducing risk as the GM. The Narrative dice work great for this too and honestly I can't see any reason not to use them in such situations like maybe a Player decides to try something risky but if he succeeds he gets a benefit not necessarily covered by the rules. If it's always gonna be done exactly the way the rules say, then your variability on what happens is static, and soon combats are made up of the same statements over and over again.

1 hour ago, Archlyte said:

You're right of course, but the rules lawyering and challenging the GM on such things is not something I think is a positive aspect of the hobby these days. I think if the GM is changing stuff on you without clearing it and not making sure it's in the social contract then I would understand that reaction, but if you signed up for the product the GM is presenting then trying to side-seat drive is going to produce problems of its own. There is a lot of "don't do this or players will get mad," but doesn't that lead to...

GM: "After setting off the grenade in the street a squad of 6 Stormtroopers come out of the alleyway and fire at you."

Player: "No. I wasn't given a Perception check."

GM: "Uh ok well then roll a Perceptions check."

Player: "Ok I was watching all of the alleys and I know this town has a garrison so I get a free upgrade to my check. Plus I have Watchful Alertness so I get 2 Blue and I remove 4 Setbacks."

GM: "Ok roll that dice pool then."

Player: "Ah 2 Triumphs. Ok I will say that the Stormtroopers don't see me at all, and at that moment a call comes across the comm that we have been seen in another part of the town."

But it's exciting to have risk vs. reward in the way that you describe things as a player and also in introducing risk as the GM. The Narrative dice work great for this too and honestly I can't see any reason not to use them in such situations like maybe a Player decides to try something risky but if he succeeds he gets a benefit not necessarily covered by the rules. If it's always gonna be done exactly the way the rules say, then your variability on what happens is static, and soon combats are made up of the same statements over and over again.

Yes, these are the 2 extremes Evetually everyone finds is balanced spot somewhere in between. If course the players largely influence this. Every game is becoming unique because of the players, so it's a constantly shifting balance. I guess the only thing a GM have to do is not let it get to said extremes.

5 hours ago, Archlyte said:

Well I think that in that particular case of your brother your options are very limited and I would do the same thing you are doing from what I can tell. I'm talking about a situation where a player turns in a great performance or idea that is well described. Sometimes the constant mechanics of the dice seem a bit much for an old player like me. If the characters are trying to talk their way into the back door of the club and they have a great plan for doing this in other games you might actually adjudicate how they are doing and just have them go in if their plan was great but also add some risky elements. You can add those risky elements without rolling threat, and the nice thing about their advantages was that they didn't roll them but actually earned them.

I never railroad, so I couldn't handwave dice for the express purpose of that, but for those who do play that way I would understand the need to do so.

But the game has narrative dice, and they are super fun, but they don't need to be used every time someone decides to sneeze, or to figure out the plot of the adventure. Exchanging the occasional check for a ruling based on approach seems like a nice bit of spice for the soup to me.

The caveat "every table is different" certainly applies, but I personally like the randomization of the dice. That's what dice are for! So, even if my group has come up with a foolproof plan to bluff their way into the club, I would never just hand it to them. I'd make them roll Deception or Stealth or whatever the appropriate skill was, and I might even upgrade the check with a Destiny Point so a Despair might come up. "Oh, success with Despair! You sneak past the bouncers and the plan works brilliantly. But now you're being ushered onto the stage by an insistent stage droid that thinks your part of the next act..." That is the flair of this system for me: using the dice to generate twists and turns no one could have predicted.

It's the feature that draws me to the game, and if you and your players are finding this a bug, that's why I intimated that perhaps your players would enjoy something else. I don't mean this with any hostility whatsoever; I'm just going off what you've been saying about being annoyed by dice determining everything.

6 hours ago, SavageBob said:

The caveat "every table is different" certainly applies, but I personally like the randomization of the dice. That's what dice are for! So, even if my group has come up with a foolproof plan to bluff their way into the club, I would never just hand it to them. I'd make them roll Deception or Stealth or whatever the appropriate skill was, and I might even upgrade the check with a Destiny Point so a Despair might come up. "Oh, success with Despair! You sneak past the bouncers and the plan works brilliantly. But now you're being ushered onto the stage by an insistent stage droid that thinks your part of the next act..." That is the flair of this system for me: using the dice to generate twists and turns no one could have predicted.

It's the feature that draws me to the game, and if you and your players are finding this a bug, that's why I intimated that perhaps your players would enjoy something else. I don't mean this with any hostility whatsoever; I'm just going off what you've been saying about being annoyed by dice determining everything.

Well thanks Bob I appreciate the response. I don't get annoyed by it and I certainly agree with you about the use of the dice providing great results, absolutely no argument there But if you see no value in allowing description to have it's day without the dice then I don't really have anything for you as far as a point. There were games before this one where you had to actually come up with those elements on your own and with your players and it was very fun. I don't think that is something that doesn't mesh with this game at times.

Also leaving it up to the dice also allows the gamey stuff to intrude constantly so that every incident now becomes about the mechanics. If it's always to be a dice check then along with the good parts of that you get the bad as well. What was a great moment for some RP or description is now subject to the bureaucratic rules and bonus mongering.

9 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

Also leaving it up to the dice also allows the gamey stuff to intrude constantly so that every incident now becomes about the mechanics.

So...to summarize...the problem is that the game intrudes...on the game?

10 hours ago, Rimsen said:

Yes, these are the 2 extremes Evetually everyone finds is balanced spot somewhere in between. If course the players largely influence this. Every game is becoming unique because of the players, so it's a constantly shifting balance. I guess the only thing a GM have to do is not let it get to said extremes.

I think that is true and I'm not advocating being a Nazi, but that thing where players try to assert narrative control via meta social pressure gets my neck fur up. If a player feels something is maybe not what they expected or wanted it to be I'm open to that, but the rules are not going to be an obstacle if I want to shoot something down. As a player I try really hard to keep my mouth shut in those moments and to be respectful of the GM because I feel that unifying vision of the game is important.

3 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

So...to summarize...the problem is that the game intrudes...on the game?

lol that does sound funny. But what I was saying there is that sometimes I feel like the narrative can have some limelight instead of it always being down to the mechanics. Or it can be a situation that the mechanics don't handle well. One of the rules that I have had the most complaints from players about is ranges on weapons. Weapons can't hit farther than their maximum effective range because that would invalidate accessories mods and talents. A slugthrower rifle created in a far future setting would probably have amazing range capability that would outperform our best high performance match ammunition and sniper rifles of today. So at the table we are all sitting there going "What? Medium Range? Same as pistols?"

I took the RAW line on this for a while but eventually I decided the players were right and it makes no sense, so we overruled the RAW and made up rules for firing past the max range of the weapon, with it all subject to GM approval in every situation. We devalued the accessories, mods, and talents.

In that situation the Game was intruding on the game so we changed it. Full respect to those who don't wish to do that for whatever reason (don't think about it too hard, maintain consistency, etc.) but for us it made sense to just go with what made sense.

Also digging into those books and referencing that stuff takes time, and we are not able to play for long sessions so it's important to try and keep the Department of Rules Department stuff down to a minimum so that we can get through scenes.

27 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

But if you see no value in allowing description to have it's day without the dice then I don't really have anything for you as far as a point. There were games before this one where you had to actually come up with those elements on your own and with your players and it was very fun. I don't think that is something that doesn't mesh with this game at times.

Can you give an example of what you mean? I mean, in D&D (the granddaddy), the same problem exists: No matter how you narrate it, your bow attack still fails if the dice say it fails. Or are you mainly just talking about social interactions?

16 minutes ago, SavageBob said:

Can you give an example of what you mean? I mean, in D&D (the granddaddy), the same problem exists: No matter how you narrate it, your bow attack still fails if the dice say it fails. Or are you mainly just talking about social interactions?

No but you bring up a good point about the combat check because I wouldn't want to not roll for that. I think that sometimes there are gratuitous checks that occur, especially if you let players trigger them. My main point in this is that sometimes you want to get through something quickly but with a good description. Or you want to have something happen but not have it be a dice check with all that comes along with that.

Social Interactions are the one that comes up the most in this sort of a discussion but for me:

1) Not every player can or wants to do the dialogue and description

2) The character is certainly better at things than the player in most cases, and the sim of that is important to me

So I am not so much about that as I would maybe like to be if things weren't how they are. But for other checks like Perception, that is one of the big ones.

Player: "I'm going to make a Perception check in this room."

GM: "Why don't you just tell me what you are looking for?"

This is the sort of thing I am talking about for avoiding a roll. In the book they have rules for Passive Checks, maybe I am just talking about that but in a different way.

OK, I see what you're getting at. It sounds like a player mentality of "I have this skill, so I want to use it." But you'd much rather have them describe their intended actions in narrative terms and then wait for you to tell them when to roll dice. I think the latter option is definitely to be preferred, with the GM determining when to bring the dice into it. Provided the GM gives the players opportunities to use the skills and talents they've sunk XP into, it should make for a more narratively engrossing experience for all.

I suspect you and I may differ in how we view the improvisational impacts of the narrative dice. For me, that's a definite perk of the system, but I'm getting the sense that you feel it's too easy to derail the game with a double Triumph and a Despair coming up, etc.?

10 hours ago, Archlyte said:

2) The character is certainly better at things than the player in most cases, and the sim of that is important to me

Man, this just goes round and round.

I starting to think you will never be satisfied. Just about every thread comes down to your dissatisfaction with how others behave. They aren't playacting to your satisfaction, or they aren't using the right dialogue. It's unreal. You're bound to continue to be disappointed because, rather than realize you're playing a game, you seem to want to run a simulation, to have a live experience of the Star Wars universe. But there is no level of verisimilitude that will be satisfactory. The level of detail is infinite. You've basically given everyone, including yourself, a Sisyphean task. Even if you're all in costume, you're still sitting around a table with a rule book. And even if you toss away the rulebooks, get in your mom's minivan and pretend it's the Millennium Falcon, and dive headlong into that child's paradise of total suspension of disbelief, in the end it's just an act, and I'm sure somebody in your group will utter the wrong exclamation at the wrong time and set you off.

You're really at a crossroads and there's only two things you can do. First is create your own work...scrap the game and write a screenplay, a novel, or whatever. You'll have total control, you can write the dialogue as you see fit, include whatever details are required to make it work for you.

The second is to continue to play, but realize that this game comes the closest you'll ever get to resolving a Star Wars feel, that you can't control everybody. Rather than complain about how others aren't meeting your expectations, just take their utterings and repaint it in your head on the fly. Chill out and re-visualize. That's what imagination is for.

6 hours ago, whafrog said:

Man, this just goes round and round.

I starting to think you will never be satisfied. Just about every thread comes down to your dissatisfaction with how others behave. They aren't playacting to your satisfaction, or they aren't using the right dialogue. It's unreal. You're bound to continue to be disappointed because, rather than realize you're playing a game, you seem to want to run a simulation, to have a live experience of the Star Wars universe. But there is no level of verisimilitude that will be satisfactory. The level of detail is infinite. You've basically given everyone, including yourself, a Sisyphean task. Even if you're all in costume, you're still sitting around a table with a rule book. And even if you toss away the rulebooks, get in your mom's minivan and pretend it's the Millennium Falcon, and dive headlong into that child's paradise of total suspension of disbelief, in the end it's just an act, and I'm sure somebody in your group will utter the wrong exclamation at the wrong time and set you off.

You're really at a crossroads and there's only two things you can do. First is create your own work...scrap the game and write a screenplay, a novel, or whatever. You'll have total control, you can write the dialogue as you see fit, include whatever details are required to make it work for you.

The second is to continue to play, but realize that this game comes the closest you'll ever get to resolving a Star Wars feel, that you can't control everybody. Rather than complain about how others aren't meeting your expectations, just take their utterings and repaint it in your head on the fly. Chill out and re-visualize. That's what imagination is for.

This was disappointing to read. This is a discussion thread where I am asking for opinions on topic folks, not really bad amateur attempts at psychoanalysis based on forum posts on a topic I created. Also this is a bout a pen and paper role-playing game, it's just not that important.

16 hours ago, SavageBob said:

OK, I see what you're getting at. It sounds like a player mentality of "I have this skill, so I want to use it." But you'd much rather have them describe their intended actions in narrative terms and then wait for you to tell them when to roll dice. I think the latter option is definitely to be preferred, with the GM determining when to bring the dice into it. Provided the GM gives the players opportunities to use the skills and talents they've sunk XP into, it should make for a more narratively engrossing experience for all.

I suspect you and I may differ in how we view the improvisational impacts of the narrative dice. For me, that's a definite perk of the system, but I'm getting the sense that you feel it's too easy to derail the game with a double Triumph and a Despair coming up, etc.?

I think the bold print is what I am getting at. Thank you.

Sometimes it's hard not to appear to be arguing for an extreme or opposite idea but I am actually really a fan of the narrative dice. I have friends who won't play this or Genesys because they hate the "Funny Dice" and without knowing the system they decry it as being simple or hopelessly new school. I am trying to see how much old school I can use in this system without shattering it.

I don't mind the big changes of fortune because of dice results (2 Triumph), but I think that was a great point you made and perhaps I am not seeing it clear enough. In my games there is nothing to derail because I play in an emergent style. That's another thing I love about this game is that I can have NPC stats ready in seconds as the environment unfolds. I don't use modules or pre-made adventures and beyond some thought put into what might happen I don't plan anything. I think that is one of the reasons I try to be very set and sound in my principles because I am performing without a net. I need the algorithm for things, not specific data associated with one or three cases.

5 hours ago, Archlyte said:

This was disappointing to read.

Perhaps the tone was uncalled for. You do start interesting threads. But you also come off as consistently complaining about the lack of verisimilitude, to a point that feels unsolvable.

On 9/9/2018 at 2:57 PM, Archlyte said:

Two extremes, but my point is that I notice at times this game really seems to promote being on automatic dice check mode instead of actually playing out scenes. It's compounded when the character has some talent that makes them super convincing because often the player has no clue as to how to play out being convincing, but the dice said he is, so he Jedi Mind Tricks his way past situations without having to actually deal with that situation.

I disagree that the game promotes using mechanics, simply because the book is discussing the mechanics. Given how free form the results of those mechanics can be, and the plethora of statements from the Devs about doing the game your way, it seems pretty clear to me they leave it up to your individual table. So I think you've got it backwards. They don't encourage you to use the mechanics, and thus that's why they put them in the book. The players DEMAND rules, rules for every...single...minute...pedantic....detail.....and so they HAVE to provide them, just to satisfy the analytical, Min/Maxing, Munchkining Star Wars fan, that obsesses over every detail, and has a stroke if anything is out of place. Seriously, it's the PLAYERS that constantly force them to add more and more rules for every aspect of the game, if the various Q&A sessions are any indication, as well as the list of questions when a Dev is on the Order 66 podcast. They never ask about how to roleplay stuff, it's always "So on page XY, rule 3 says you can do ABC, but what about if Situation 123 is in place? What are the mechanics for that incredibly specific situation?! TELL ME BEFORE I KILL MYSELF FOR NOT KNOWING!!" And then they have to further crunchify something that was intended to be fairly fluffy and fluid.

On 9/9/2018 at 2:57 PM, Archlyte said:

What are some of the ways you get the players to actually role-play the situations, and do you leave out the FFG magic talking stick at times? Make them actually talk and figure out solutions?

Good god the number of things I've tried to get my players to try and actually ROLE-play, instead of ROLL-play. I've adopted accents, done elaborate body posturing to represent different characters. I've flirted with them when the NPC was inclined to do so. You name it, I've pretty much tried it. None of it...works. Because they are just too number crunchy, introverted, min/maxing gamers by nature. They don't WANT to roleplay it. They don't WANT to try and ACT like their character, and engage personally with another human being, in a direct way. They want to have it be impersonal, with the filter of the dice mechanics between them and me the GM. They want to just roll some dice, see the results, and be told the outcome.

So no, I don't think the game itself forces someone to use mechanics to resolve every single situation. I think FFG just simply knows their customer base very well, and tailored their product according to that base's needs.

I'd LOVE IT, if I could barely even look at the books, or the character sheets, for anything other than the occasional combat situation, and have the rest of the time be me and my friends just having an improv acting session with Star Wars characters. But sadly, the biggest hurdle to that, isn't the game....it's the players.

On ‎9‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 9:58 AM, KungFuFerret said:

I disagree that the game promotes using mechanics, simply because the book is discussing the mechanics. Given how free form the results of those mechanics can be, and the plethora of statements from the Devs about doing the game your way, it seems pretty clear to me they leave it up to your individual table. So I think you've got it backwards. They don't encourage you to use the mechanics, and thus that's why they put them in the book. The players DEMAND rules, rules for every...single...minute...pedantic....detail.....and so they HAVE to provide them, just to satisfy the analytical, Min/Maxing, Munchkining Star Wars fan, that obsesses over every detail, and has a stroke if anything is out of place. Seriously, it's the PLAYERS that constantly force them to add more and more rules for every aspect of the game, if the various Q&A sessions are any indication, as well as the list of questions when a Dev is on the Order 66 podcast. They never ask about how to roleplay stuff, it's always "So on page XY, rule 3 says you can do ABC, but what about if Situation 123 is in place? What are the mechanics for that incredibly specific situation?! TELL ME BEFORE I KILL MYSELF FOR NOT KNOWING!!" And then they have to further crunchify something that was intended to be fairly fluffy and fluid.

Good god the number of things I've tried to get my players to try and actually ROLE-play, instead of ROLL-play. I've adopted accents, done elaborate body posturing to represent different characters. I've flirted with them when the NPC was inclined to do so. You name it, I've pretty much tried it. None of it...works. Because they are just too number crunchy, introverted, min/maxing gamers by nature. They don't WANT to roleplay it. They don't WANT to try and ACT like their character, and engage personally with another human being, in a direct way. They want to have it be impersonal, with the filter of the dice mechanics between them and me the GM. They want to just roll some dice, see the results, and be told the outcome.

So no, I don't think the game itself forces someone to use mechanics to resolve every single situation. I think FFG just simply knows their customer base very well, and tailored their product according to that base's needs.

I'd LOVE IT, if I could barely even look at the books, or the character sheets, for anything other than the occasional combat situation, and have the rest of the time be me and my friends just having an improv acting session with Star Wars characters. But sadly, the biggest hurdle to that, isn't the game....it's the players.

Yeah I think everything you said makes sense. I often assume that the Order 66 podcast represents the official line on things and that's not really true so when I do that it's in error. The podcast has that presentation of something that is designed to appeal to the widest audience possible. They never met a cliché' or silly character name they didn't like, but they also readily denounce overpowered stuff as being "cheese," which I think is an ingeniously gentle way of saying it's lame. I love the podcast, it's definitely a guilty pleasure for me.

You are so right about the emphasis of the questions, and it is always about mechanical stuff and not role-playing considerations. This game is so powerful in its capabilities, and that is why I use it nearly exclusively for my games Star Wars or no, but I think that description is a great way to have fun in the game.

There are specializations built on making social rolls that can be achieved with naked mechanics and not described or role-played. If you wanted to board-game a TTRPG, this would be one of the top contenders for system choice because of the way there is a roll for everything. I think that makes for a very flexible and powerful tool as long as the exclusionary stance (if you don't have it you can't do it) isn't taken for non Force/Magical stuff. But if not it's very collectible card game-like.

I think FFG wanted to monetize the game highly considering they must be paying a hefty amount for the licensing, so the more you can create a slick graphic for each sub-version of an archetype the more you are suggesting that the game is more about using the official version of everything. In the past when I play a system I buy the minimal number of books needed to play and then I build everything else based on the examples. This game is about buying a lot of stuff for a new version of something that really isn't all that different like Droid tech vs. Droid Specialist. You could have had neither of those and just had GM's saying "Ok yeah you can deactivate the droid better than most people so go for it," but when you can have a big full color picture of a Droid Husbandry Expert and a Tree that gives him the ability to do Binary Poetry people say ok that is official and easily accepted because it's in the book, I'll take that. Card Games are the big money for some of these companies so it would make sense to take elements from those games as well as video games and MMOs in designing a product. Do you have the card for Quickdraw? Ok then you can't do it.

I once challenged one of my players to start making a character for this game without thinking of any careers or trees. The player couldn't do it. He was not able to put together an idea because he wasn't able to know what tree he would have based on his description of the character. Career Planning is endemic to playing characters in this game, and because of that people are looking at their Talent boxes to know what their character is. I get that people really enjoy the build-a-character stuff, but it feels super meta to me for it to always be such a concern. Can you imagine making a Slicer or Bounty Hunter and just not putting points into your tree? If you can I'm sure you are in the minority.

Characters have Trees with Talents, many Talents have a check associated with the Talent, and therefore the characters are identified by the way they can roll/resolve checks based on their Talents. It's literally the design of the game. Every game has mechanics, but this one has a brilliant mechanic for resolving situations narratively. By itself those dice make it fun to resolve even without description, but if you add description and role-playing on top of them it's just amazing. My decision has been to introduce instances of less rolling in some situations to heighten the experience of when the dice are used, and to help focus on description, but it seems that this is undesirable to some (which I understand) because it excludes the practice of rolling for everything, which they feel devalues the tree progression mini-game.

Assuming the game does push people to use its mechanics, it does so pretty gently. For comparison, look at games based on the Powered by the Apocalypse rule set, like Masks: the New Generation or Dungeon World. Aside from a few moves (kinda like talents), the only way to gain XP is to roll, because you earn XP from failing a roll. Want that sweet XP? Better roll some dice!

That said, both of these games push the roleplaying side far, far more than SW does, too.