5 hours 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 agree with a lot of this. It's interesting the way 1 or 2 ranks is looked at as Novice or Apprentice (as you are correct about that) but I thought I saw something that had even 1 Proficiency die adding a good amount of real percentage chance of success to the roll in examining the over all probabilities of the dice. To me a rank in a skill means some training and experience, to the guys who wrote the book and most people who play this game 1 rank is pathetic. It's math bloat as most of these games have. Gotta have 6's or you suck.

As to the dice pre-rolling, I don't care for that because I like to have the dice always speak for themselves and I never fudge them even in games where it is easier, but I would say that maybe look at not even rolling those checks after all if you are that worried about flow and slowdown.

The dice in this game are very fun, but dice in any TTRPG can be overused. In your example of the character in the alley, do you feel the character would be able to anticipate the attack? If you don't think so then just make the character narratively go after the opponent. If the player begins to meta game the situations then meta-talk to them about what they are doing. I often use a Narrative Initiative with this game if I feel like common sense would have someone obviously going first.

Also as someone else said above some things just shouldn't be a roll. I've seen these called Dice Shortcuts but to me they are more like Dice Summations. You enter a hallway and ask the GM can I make a Perception check? Hopefully the GM would answer, what are you looking for and why don't you just describe looking for it?

8 hours ago, oneeyedmatt87 said:

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)

Haha nice one....well maybe the example is not perfect.... Or it is....well, the truth to the matter is that we're not in the matrix where you just load up the skill you want to learn... technically, real life can be something to refer to.... To become a doctor in real life, it takes close to 10 years of study.....nurse about 5-7 years...

How many skills do we start with? A bunch...

Now all skills are not learned in the same manner... medecine will most likely be learn by studying.... While shooting a weapon can be learn at the shooting range or on the field....driving would be learn by driving your car.....even though your comment is funny...and felt true in some way.....if we think about it, we have soo many hours driving a car....of course you would have 0 when getting your driving license....but 5 years later....would you still be a 0?!

Anyway i think Archlyte got it right...skills is some experience .. And i just have to narratate the way i want the story to go instead of making dice check

I could be wrong but something i think to read between the lines is more of a Player/GM problem and how those play the game, than just mechanics.

There is a channel on some very well known video site named: "How to be a great Game Master" but there is also a lot of advice for the players. Most often it is even the same topic faced from both positions. It's mildly focused on DnD but he also talks a lot about other settings, one of it beeing Star Wars.

It surely helped to upgrade my qualities as a GM and a Player a lot (at least i feel that way as Player and got some good feedback as GM) although i'm still far away from perfect. There are also some statements on how not only accepting failure but almost praise it for the option to get some great roleplay and drama out of it. So that the GM not just slams the door shut on a failed PC roll but thinks of other (more uncomfortable) options, and the players actually running into a trap smiling because the PC failed his roll, focusing on the anger his PC will have when betrayed instead of the fear of the player. That guy talks a lot about how important it is to try and tell a good story at the table instead to try to beat each other (Player<->GM).

I think that way to look at this topic is very true for a system like FFG Star Wars, while i don't think it will always work super well with other systems that don't focus so heavily on the story. But it can improve the game nonetheless!

14 hours ago, Mefyrx said:

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...

There is an easy test for this: most people are terrified of stormtroopers, they would exceed the average person in their combat ability and be deadly opponents. So if you're right, then stormtroopers should easily match or exceed the average starting character.

But they don't, do they? A stormtrooper has a Wound threshold of 5, and only has skills in a group. By your measure, any average person would take out several before breakfast.

So your GM is right, the game is designed to make you special right out of the gate. Otherwise, every stormtrooper would be a Nemesis.

I think you're confusing the existing game mechanics with the kind of game you want to play. This and D&D assume you are awesome right away. But there are plenty of other games that assume you're average from the start, such as World of Darkness or Call of Cthulhu. It all very much depends on the game design.

16 hours ago, the mercenary said:

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 would ask if you were on one of Crusie Con cruises but you were on the wrong ocean

16 hours ago, Mefyrx said:

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

You can always have the player's make a random check somewhere else in the game and note the results.

When they ask "what was that roll for?" just answer "Nothing" or "You'll see"

I learned that trick from another GM and only use it when I know I am going to try for some suspense later on. Whenever you ask a player to roll a dice, they are automatically alert so having them roll it (with the preplanned difficulty) still gives them the feel of doing the check but no idea of why.

Never do this for combat checks but Vigilance, Cool, and Perception checks are all open

1 hour ago, Varlie said:

I would ask if you were on one of Crusie Con cruises but you were on the wrong ocean

I was on a WestPac 'cruise', aboard a US Navy LHD. There were some other gamer nerds in the USMC and we were in a fairly quiet part of the hangar bay since there were loud jagoffs playing spades and dominoes in the mess Hall and lounge.

4 hours ago, whafrog said:

There is an easy test for this: most people are terrified of stormtroopers, they would exceed the average person in their combat ability and be deadly opponents. So if you're right, then stormtroopers should easily match or exceed the average starting character.

But they don't, do they? A stormtrooper has a Wound threshold of 5, and only has skills in a group. By your measure, any average person would take out several before breakfast.

So your GM is right, the game is designed to make you special right out of the gate. Otherwise, every stormtrooper would be a Nemesis.

I think you're confusing the existing game mechanics with the kind of game you want to play. This and D&D assume you are awesome right away. But there are plenty of other games that assume you're average from the start, such as World of Darkness or Call of Cthulhu. It all very much depends on the game design.

Its to take with a grain of salt....

The general population are not fighters....therefor have obvious reason to be afraid of stormtroopers....... a basic mercenary is probably not....

On top of that, the grand republic soldiers were way stronger than a stormtrooper... I haven't read much about the diseased that stroked the Empire's stromtroopers.... so they are weaker than they used to be....basically, they can't hit a target.... but their strength now resides in their numbers....

35 minutes ago, Mefyrx said:

The general population are not fighters....therefor have obvious reason to be afraid of stormtroopers....... a basic mercenary is probably not...

In case you haven't checked (and you didn't) the basic mercenary in the game is worse than a stormtrooper. I don't think you're getting it: the game is designed so the PCs are "special". If that's not the game you want to play, then you either need to switch game systems, or make every NPC you meet needs to be on the PC's level, ie: Nemesis.

This is why I've used the term probably....because I'm not in front of the book.... Fine you're special, still doesn't allowed you to do whatever what batman would be able to do....or the Joker.... Gordon is special..... Yeah you might start at his lvl....