Wondering if it's a good idea. If I get to be the GM, I'll have on a sheet of paper thrown lets say 50 green 20 yellow 30 blue dices in advance.... same for the difficulty.... and when the crew decides to do an action that I feel that they better not know the result, I would simply ask what dices do they have, lets says 1 yellow 2 green, set the difficulty and scratch on my sheet of paper the next dice of each color...therefor narrating in consequence without having them knowing if they succeeded with the result.

No. It isn't. First off, it takes away from the randomness of the encounter if you're going down a preset list. Secondly, the dice are supposed to provide a cooperative story telling mechanic. As such, the players should always roll their own dice.

It is still random as dices ares thrown.....you just know what they are applied to yet....not that i would intend rolls that arent there just to skip a couple of dices...

As for the story....

Lets say you have a dark alley in front of you and you suceed your vigilance check...player would tend to walk right in knowing nothing will happen.... If they fail their vigilance cehck, they will start taking all these precaution before going in the alley

Now if you dont know as a player if you've succeed or fail.....makes a whole.different game

13 minutes ago, Mefyrx said:

Now if you dont know as a player if you've succeed or fail.....makes a whole.different game

"Different" is one way to put it. If they take all these precautions and there's nothing there, you've just wasted everybody's time. Not to mention you don't give the player the option to spend advantages/triumph (or you to spend threat/despair). If you want a tactical simulator, a meter-by-meter slog through terrain, this is the wrong game for you.

It's easy to adjust your approach so that the tension in the game doesn't come from this false sense of peril, but instead comes from the story, and whatever plot devices you have in play. The most critical of these is a clock: what are the PCs trying to achieve before X happens? Once the PCs have deadlines to meet, this worry about "knowing" disappears.

24 minutes ago, Mefyrx said:

It is still random as dices ares thrown.....you just know what they are applied to yet....not that i would intend rolls that arent there just to skip a couple of dices...

As for the story....

Lets say you have a dark alley in front of you and you suceed your vigilance check...player would tend to walk right in knowing nothing will happen.... If they fail their vigilance cehck, they will start taking all these precaution before going in the alley

Now if you dont know as a player if you've succeed or fail.....makes a whole.different game

That's being an adversarial GM, which this game is not designed for at all. And, as for the players, the same is true. The game is designed for cooperative play. And the Advantage/Threat/Thriumph/Despair of the narrative dice is what drives that.

4 minutes ago, whafrog said:

"Different" is one way to put it. If they take all these precautions and there's nothing there, you've just wasted everybody's time. Not to mention you don't give the player the option to spend advantages/triumph (or you to spend threat/despair). If you want a tactical simulator, a meter-by-meter slog through terrain, this is the wrong game for you.

It's easy to adjust your approach so that the tension in the game doesn't come from this false sense of peril, but instead comes from the story, and whatever plot devices you have in play. The most critical of these is a clock: what are the PCs trying to achieve before X happens? Once the PCs have deadlines to meet, this worry about "knowing" disappears.

Exactly.

Plus, we all love rolling dice! We collect them, baby talk to them, and forgive them ,quite easily, when they screw us over. It helps the players feel like they are in control over their destiny.

21 minutes ago, whisperingskull said:

forgive them ,quite easily,

Not always, my girlfriend used to punish hers by putting them in the freezer.

As to the topic at hand, this is a point of contention nearly as old as RPGs themselves and has been argued to death numerous times on this very board.

5 minutes ago, Vorzakk said:

Not always, my girlfriend used to punish hers by putting them in the freezer.

One of my friends executed one of his dice as "a lesson to the others". Which were all arranged in a circle around the unfortunate 20 sider. Which was crushed with a hammer.

3 minutes ago, Edgookin said:

One of my friends executed one of his dice as "a lesson to the others". Which were all arranged in a circle around the unfortunate 20 sider. Which was crushed with a hammer.

Brutal! I love mine too much. I punish mine by not using them for a while. D20 time out so to speak.

If you use the dice simply as a binary result tool you put yourself in this position. If a GM wants some 'doubt' about how well PCs perform a check, then they should be looking at setting a more scalable bar for success.

Set a higher number of successes needed, just like a Wound pool of a combatant. Long before SM came out I ran slicing just like combat, with networks having Wounds, Soak, Defense. They could be actively defended by an AI or network security team. I made slicing tools that added successes just like a weapon attack. I never got into making a computer crit chart, but I have considered it. I deal with fighting shipboard fires the same way. Fires have a Wound pool and firefighting tools suppress that. The fire has upgrades so Despairs and Threats can result in badness to the firefighters.

Another option for creating doubt is competitive checks. For my Star Trek conversion I came up with a number of them in ship combat a PC with different kinds of Skill could attempt. Simply succeeding is no longer the objective, they have to out score the opponent or the challenge. It creates more outcome doubt and encourages the largest number of success possible. I also give bigger payouts for Triumphs, so just being the PC with the big Green pool isn't almost as good anymore.

I would never pre generate results, you could just email me how well I did that session and save me the gas money.

1 hour ago, whisperingskull said:

and forgive them ,quite easily, when they screw us over.

Speak for yourself. I've thrown a die into the middle of the Pacific Ocean, somewhere near the equator, because I got sick of it constantly skrewing me with bad rolls.

I think some people are putting emphasis on the wrong element....

How well you do throwing dice is not how well your game experience is.... Wether dices are thrown before or during gameplay doesnt changes anything....if throwing dices is the goal of the game....then just dont play the game and save yourself time...

The object here is creating doubt like some people said here....so the usual throwing dice that wouldnt create doubt wouldnt have to be thrown in advance..... And anyway the thrown inadvance could take place by the GM behind cover....so it is pointless....before...during....

So, some people have made some suggestion about creating doubt...thank you for that...not that it is in my palet....but it is something to consider

3 hours ago, Mefyrx said:

It is still random as dices ares thrown.....you just know what they are applied to yet....not that i would intend rolls that arent there just to skip a couple of dices...

As for the story....

Lets say you have a dark alley in front of you and you suceed your vigilance check...player would tend to walk right in knowing nothing will happen.... If they fail their vigilance cehck, they will start taking all these precaution before going in the alley

Now if you dont know as a player if you've succeed or fail.....makes a whole.different game

It would indeed make a whole different game.

Which would make me wonder why you're playing this one if you're going for a whole different game.

I expect players to not overly meta-game. I will challenge a pc who acts differently because they have ooc knowledge. I'll eventually just stop playing if they can't occasionally have their characters do detrimental things for the sake of the story and respect for the dice rolls. So far this hasn't been an issue.

The other option is to set a certain number of successes, sure they succeed and see something... It just may not be everything.

1 hour ago, Nytwyng said:

It would indeed make a whole different game.

Which would make me wonder why you're playing this one if you're going for a whole different game.

The game is what you're making of it....

I've had an argument with my GM... we many time disagree on stuff...because we see differently things....

He says that because you're a PC, therefor you're a hero and having just few points in anything (basically your 100 XP points or whatever it is you begin with) is better than 99% of the population... (of course if you concede that 99% of the population are minions)

And I'm like, no, a PC that I am playing is just a being just like anything else in this universe and what I do with my PC will define who I am..... I am no hero....could be an hero in the making...who knows, it depends on my action and how the game evolve.... but starting the game with a fresh character, you're a zero...

He advances that, just the basic stats is more than 99% of the population and therefor just that should allow you to do great stuff...

Having 1-2 point in computer skills and he's already talking about being able to disengaged the security of a bank....because you're a hero

But the book states that 1-2 point in anything skills is equivalent to a novice.... 3-4 points someone specialize and 5 points is an expert... so you better be close to an expert and/or have many tools that will help you to decide to go on and rob a bank in my campaign and this is without considering that they would need to find blueprints and information about the security in there...before thinking they may have a shot at this...

And here lies the biggest problem.....because we see difficulties way differently...and this creates difficulty about everyone contributing to a story in the making.....(thinking that I've "found" 2 thermal grenades on a stormtrooper bike who attacked our camp with basic grenade in the previous encounter......and I was like dude basic grenades...basic grenades....but he wanted to be right...so he sticked to it...)..because this is the whole point of the game....creating a story where everyone would add something to make something realistic....like writing a book....

Therefor becomes the doubts.... because if as a GM you create doubts on your PC …..this impairs the "easy flow hero do everything and succeed" mentality that one may have....

Had the same argument with another players... (all close friends of mine btw) where having a General Purpose Scanner, for them meant that I'm going to walk in a forest with my eyes set on the purpose scanner and therefor I should never face an encounter that I'm unaware of...…. and I've had a big chat here about this....how General Purpose Scanner should work..... and you have to remember that in all of this, I am a fellow PC at the moment..... but I want something realistic....I want challenge and well thinking....not some hijacking the game with OP stuff whether it is game mechanics or game items

And knowing this, it is human behavior that if we know something is wrong (failed check), even if we shouldn't (as a PC) ….we will act accordingly....and thus me talking about adding the "doubt" element with this post.... maybe not using the right way to do so.... but still, the idea is there

So if a PC makes a roll to see if he trust someone and he doesn't know the result nor the difficulty, a failure as a GM you will tell him that he is trustworthy and the PC will therefor tend to trust you more than he knew he failed the check.....same for a success ….you'll say that he succeed but he will still keep a little though that he may be wrong.... and I would tend to believe that this adds to the game instead of impairing it....enforcing that players play their characters properly...

Of course, this though process doesn't apply to all rolls....just the one that creates doubts...

My concerns with this:

- As others have stated, interpreting a dice result should be a cooperative effort. I've seen players come up with great ideas about using a Triumph that the GM never would've considered and which opened up their storytelling in a completely new and exciting way. By taking the approach you've described, you limit the storytelling options to whatever the GM personally can come up with on the spot.

- Each and every talent that lets you reroll dice or otherwise alter a dice result (and there are plenty) is made useless by this.

- This takes a lot of the excitement of using a Destiny Point out of it. Instead of "phew, that double Success I got on the Proficiency die because of the Destiny point really saved my behind", you get "yeah, uh, I flipped a Destiny point, but heck if I know whether that actually did anything".

From your last post, it seems like the issues you have isn't with the game mechanics, but with the expectations and behavior of the people you play with. Maybe discussing those in detail (especially if you run your own game) is a better approach than changing something as fundamental as the interpretation of the dice results.

24 minutes ago, EpicTed said:

My concerns with this:

- As others have stated, interpreting a dice result should be a cooperative effort. I've seen players come up with great ideas about using a Triumph that the GM never would've considered and which opened up their storytelling in a completely new and exciting way. By taking the approach you've described, you limit the storytelling options to whatever the GM personally can come up with on the spot.

- Each and every talent that lets you reroll dice or otherwise alter a dice result (and there are plenty) is made useless by this.

- This takes a lot of the excitement of using a Destiny Point out of it. Instead of "phew, that double Success I got on the Proficiency die because of the Destiny point really saved my behind", you get "yeah, uh, I flipped a Destiny point, but heck if I know whether that actually did anything".

From your last post, it seems like the issues you have isn't with the game mechanics, but with the expectations and behavior of the people you play with. Maybe discussing those in detail (especially if you run your own game) is a better approach than changing something as fundamental as the interpretation of the dice results.

constructive comment ?

1 hour ago, Mefyrx said:

So if a PC makes a roll to see if he trust someone and he doesn't know the result nor the difficulty, a failure as a GM you will tell him that he is trustworthy and the PC will therefor tend to trust you more than he knew he failed the check.....same for a success ….you'll say that he succeed but he will still keep a little though that he may be wrong.... and I would tend to believe that this adds to the game instead of impairing it....enforcing that players play their characters properly...

Of course, this though process doesn't apply to all rolls....just the one that creates doubts...

I'd never use a roll of the dice for this, before during or after game play. You get to decide for yourself whether you trust someone.

Part of the problem may be your group is just making dice rolls for things where they just aren't appropriate.

I don't allow social skills to be used as mind control.

I don't allow Perception or any Skill checks to determine whether or not a player thinks someone is trustworthy. They don't roll to see if someone is nervous, I just tell them, they're looking right at them.

I expect the characters to tell me what they're searching for and where they're searching, I don't have them roll Perception and then succeed or fail determines if I hand them an inventory of a room's contents. No throw down questions like 'I look for anything out of the ordinary', my answer would be you have no idea what's out of the ordinary in this room.

In regards to differences of opinion with a GM about the relative settings of difficulties or skill ranks, that's hardly a cause to throw the mechanics out the window.

Your issues sound more like expectations and you're looking for a rule to bend your GM and fellow players to your will with. My advice would be to do as your GM decides and extend the courtesy the GM is due as rule arbiter, and then when you're in the GM chair you make your judgments and are on much more solid ground to expect the same courtesy in return. You certainly can't argue with the GM and be entitled to any hard feelings when they do the same in return.

1 hour ago, Mefyrx said:

The game is what you're making of it....

I've had an argument with my GM... we many time disagree on stuff...because we see differently things....

He says that because you're a PC, therefor you're a hero and having just few points in anything (basically your 100 XP points or whatever it is you begin with) is better than 99% of the population... (of course if you concede that 99% of the population are minions)

And I'm like, no, a PC that I am playing is just a being just like anything else in this universe and what I do with my PC will define who I am..... I am no hero....could be an hero in the making...who knows, it depends on my action and how the game evolve.... but starting the game with a fresh character, you're a zero...

He advances that, just the basic stats is more than 99% of the population and therefor just that should allow you to do great stuff...

Having 1-2 point in computer skills and he's already talking about being able to disengaged the security of a bank....because you're a hero

But the book states that 1-2 point in anything skills is equivalent to a novice.... 3-4 points someone specialize and 5 points is an expert... so you better be close to an expert and/or have many tools that will help you to decide to go on and rob a bank in my campaign and this is without considering that they would need to find blueprints and information about the security in there...before thinking they may have a shot at this...

And here lies the biggest problem.....because we see difficulties way differently...and this creates difficulty about everyone contributing to a story in the making.....(thinking that I've "found" 2 thermal grenades on a stormtrooper bike who attacked our camp with basic grenade in the previous encounter......and I was like dude basic grenades...basic grenades....but he wanted to be right...so he sticked to it...)..because this is the whole point of the game....creating a story where everyone would add something to make something realistic....like writing a book....

Therefor becomes the doubts.... because if as a GM you create doubts on your PC …..this impairs the "easy flow hero do everything and succeed" mentality that one may have....

Had the same argument with another players... (all close friends of mine btw) where having a General Purpose Scanner, for them meant that I'm going to walk in a forest with my eyes set on the purpose scanner and therefor I should never face an encounter that I'm unaware of...…. and I've had a big chat here about this....how General Purpose Scanner should work..... and you have to remember that in all of this, I am a fellow PC at the moment..... but I want something realistic....I want challenge and well thinking....not some hijacking the game with OP stuff whether it is game mechanics or game items

And knowing this, it is human behavior that if we know something is wrong (failed check), even if we shouldn't (as a PC) ….we will act accordingly....and thus me talking about adding the "doubt" element with this post.... maybe not using the right way to do so.... but still, the idea is there

So if a PC makes a roll to see if he trust someone and he doesn't know the result nor the difficulty, a failure as a GM you will tell him that he is trustworthy and the PC will therefor tend to trust you more than he knew he failed the check.....same for a success ….you'll say that he succeed but he will still keep a little though that he may be wrong.... and I would tend to believe that this adds to the game instead of impairing it....enforcing that players play their characters properly...

Of course, this though process doesn't apply to all rolls....just the one that creates doubts...

I think most people here would agree with your GM. I would. Having one or two ranks in physics makes you a novice physicist. Having one or two ranks in pilot makes you a novice pilot. Having one or two ranks in medicine makes you a novice doctor. Each of these things are already well outside of 'just a dude'.

On the other hand, I agree with you about the GP scanner. It isnt a 'detect every thing for free' item. Without the proper training (like say the Vigilance or Computer skills) knowing what the scanner is telling you would be pretty hard.

As for prerolling dice, I would find it boring. Part of the fun is seeing the dice when everything comes up Triumphs or Despairs. Just being told what happens lacks that excitement.

36 minutes ago, korjik said:

I think most people here would agree with your GM. I would. Having one or two ranks in physics makes you a novice physicist. Having one or two ranks in pilot makes you a novice pilot. Having one or two ranks in medicine makes you a novice doctor. Each of these things are already well outside of 'just a dude'.

On the other hand, I agree with you about the GP scanner. It isnt a 'detect every thing for free' item. Without the proper training (like say the Vigilance or Computer skills) knowing what the scanner is telling you would be pretty hard.

As for prerolling dice, I would find it boring. Part of the fun is seeing the dice when everything comes up Triumphs or Despairs. Just being told what happens lacks that excitement.

This is where I disagree... having 1-2 ranks in medicine makes you a nurse....

Having 1-2 ranks in driving doesn't make you a professional F1 pilot..... having 1-2 ranks makes you a common person able to drive a car....

15 minutes ago, Mefyrx said:

This is where I disagree... having 1-2 ranks in medicine makes you a nurse....

Having 1-2 ranks in driving doesn't make you a professional F1 pilot..... having 1-2 ranks makes you a common person able to drive a car....

The rules seem to think it's somewhere in the middle.

"It's generally reasonable to assume that other characters in the game world rely heavily upon their characteristics for actions outside their field of expertise. For example, almost everyone can pilot a speeder in routine traffic, but most people do not have a rank in Piloting (Planetary)"

"The first two ranks of a skill represent a thorough grounding in that skill but little practical experience"

-AOR pg 114

PS I think it's hilarious that you think "being a nurse" is equivalent to driving a car. (Don't tell mention this to any nurses you know if you value your life)

18 minutes ago, Mefyrx said:

This is where I disagree... having 1-2 ranks in medicine makes you a nurse....

Having 1-2 ranks in driving doesn't make you a professional F1 pilot..... having 1-2 ranks makes you a common person able to drive a car....

Given that you don't have to take tests with piloting until you try to do something tricky, 0 ranks makes you a common person able to drive a car, or a space ship, they're pretty much the same. 0 ranks and 4 agility and you're even a pretty **** decent pilot. 1-2 ranks and 4 agility and you're piloting on the level of Tie Ace pilots. So no, at that level you're most definitely not a normal person able to drive a car.

The PC is generally a cut above most people, not in all possible fields, but they're most definitely better than most people in the fields where they specialize.

Ranks 1 and 2 represent completion of formal training, so a Dr. that just graduated medical school. 3 and 4 represent a professional with a great deal of real world experience. 5 is, you wrote the book, on how to write books....

3 hours ago, Mefyrx said:

So if a PC makes a roll to see if he trust someone and he doesn't know the result nor the difficulty, a failure as a GM you will tell him that he is trustworthy and the PC will therefor tend to trust you more than he knew he failed the check.....same for a success ….you'll say that he succeed but he will still keep a little though that he may be wrong.... and I would tend to believe that this adds to the game instead of impairing it....enforcing that players play their characters properly...

If you really think that this sounds like a great idea then there are systems designed around the Gygaxian Screwjob style of GMing. This isn't one of them.